P-51 versus Malibu M600

[treadigraph]

Whoops! Houston Executive Airport...

The P-51D Mustang "Glamorous Glenn III" ran into the aft section of N282TX, a Piper PA-46-600TP M600, as it was holding short for departure for Runway 36 at Taxiway "A".
The M600 sustained extensive damage (both the horizontal and vertical stabilizers were destroyed, and the aft fuselage skin was damaged). The P-51D sustained minor damage to the propeller. There were no injuries.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/305422

[ATC Watcher]

The M600 sustained extensive damage (both the horizontal and vertical stabilizers were destroyed, and the aft fuselage skin was damaged). The P-51D sustained minor damage to the propeller
Good old P51. And that was only with engine on idle. :E

[India Four Two]

The P-51D sustained minor damage to the propeller

​​​​​​​Presumably the engine will have to be overhauled, due to shock-loading

[ATC Watcher]

Presumably the engine will have to be overhauled, due to shock-loading
Maybe , but II would say checking the crankshaft will be enough . I have seen many "nose over" on tail draggers with engine on idle, and generally the engine was fine. But I am not a mechanic and no experience on Rolls Royce or Allison V12s...

[India Four Two]

It's going to take more than duct tape:
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/720x960/malibu_1_02b83b5484d0f2c04d4857eb0a80f34c17aa7d5b.jpg


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/720x960/malibu_2_fd890304a0b979de0f27d32f8890ee13ca97a0a0.jpg


"Nothing to do with me Officer! Those dents in the spinner are old."
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/720x960/p_51_666d3e726c01288a13bc3691a5d1fef7fd0d0b50.jpg
This must have been taken soon after the accident - the wheel-well doors have not yet fully opened.

[sycamore]

Must`ve been the Sun in his eyes.....

[India Four Two]

Must`ve been the Sun in his eyes.....

Beware the Hun Piper in the Sun!

[Blackfriar]

Whoops! Houston Executive Airport...



https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/305422
Shouldn't tail draggers (especially long-nosed birds like this) be required to have a person walking in front with a red flag?

[treadigraph]

Weaving is the usual method of avoiding whoopsies on the taxiway.

Bob Hoover hit a truck with his Mustang I believe ("who left that there?" rings a bell) and the sadly late Carolyn Grace de-boomed a parked Jet Ranger with her Spit at Duxford. Doggy doos happens to even the best...

[blue up]

Go-Pro in the nose cowl feeding to a Phone screen?

[ATC Watcher]

Go-Pro in the nose cowl feeding to a Phone screen?
:) turning at 2500 Rpm ?
Most Taildraggers and long-nosed warbirds in particular have taxi visibility issues, and we have way to compensate. Slow and slight regular S turns are the norm , The problem comes when someone pops up in front of you unexpected, or queuing in a lane when the one in front brake and stop in without saying anything ..

[punkalouver]

:) turning at 2500 Rpm ?
Most Taildraggers and long-nosed warbirds in particular have taxi visibility issues, and we have way to compensate. Slow and slight regular S turns are the norm , The problem comes when someone pops up in front of you unexpected, or queuing in a lane when the one in front brake and stop in without saying anything ..

I am not sure about stating that you are stopping each time you stop while in line at a runway at a busy airport with a long-nosed taildragger behind you. Of course, there is a logic to it and it might be a good idea when you are small to do something when there is a large-bladed aircraft like this behind you. As the little guy who knows there is a big-nosed taildragger behind them, one might position themselves at the edge of the taxiway where they are more likely to be seen or even turn themself at an angle when stopping to be able to monitor that big aircraft behind you.

But the taildragger should be keeping a proper lookout. Depending on the design of the taildragger with poor forward visibility, this may mean not stopping so that you are pointed straight ahead but stopping at an angle to the taxiway centerline(allowing you to see forward along the taxiway). Or if stopped and pointed straight ahead, once ready to move forward, adding power and applying one brake to turn the aircraft a certain number of degrees on the spot so that you can see ahead along the taxiway and then applying the other brake to turn back on the spot(or close to it) toward the taxiway heading to taxi forward. Or possibly having a marshaller in certain circumstances like Oshkosh or in certain circumstances potentially asking on the radio for some sort of visual verification assistance.

[Pilot DAR]

Most Taildraggers and long-nosed warbirds in particular have taxi visibility issues, and we have way to compensate.

Yes.

The problem comes when someone pops up in front of you unexpected, or queuing in a lane when the one in front brake and stop in without saying anything ..

There is no aviation methodology for a taxiing airplane to announce that it is slowing or stopping. Using a radio frequency for this would create communication chaos, and no one could know who is who anyway... "G-ABCD stopping!"... Is that the plane I'm taxiing behind?

It is simply the responsibility of a taxiing pilot to assure that the path is clear. If someone could pop up or stop in front of you, you should be aware of their presence before they could pose a collision hazard. Obviously, being the "pop up / sudden stop" pilot is not great airport etiquette, and courtesy would suggest the need to make one's self known, or give way to the moving airplane if practical, but it is a pilot's responsibility to taxi safely!

[DuncanDoenitz]

No injuries; good. I think we can chalk that up as a "Probable".

[ATC Watcher]

Punkalouver and Pilot DAR " I was in no way suggesting you should call on the R/T evertime you stop, of course not , would be meaningless.also . I badly phrased this. should have better said " unexpectedly" instead. Anyway we do not know exactly what happenned , could be a brake failure from the P51 for all we know. That said if I was fying a P51 , (whishes, !...) I would taxi it extremely carefully and very ,very slowly , but again maybe that is also what the guy did here too. **** just happens sometimes. .

[abgd]

Shouldn't tail draggers (especially long-nosed birds like this) be required to have a person walking in front with a red flag?

You're welcome to volunteer.

[RatherBeFlying]

I recall a WWII film of several P-47s taxiing out, each with the crew chief lying on the wing.

[DuncanDoenitz]

I recall a WWII film of several P-47s taxiing out, each with the crew chief lying on the wing.
I'd pay top-dollar for some of that.

[megan]

I recall a WWII film of several P-47s taxiing out, each with the crew chief lying on the wingStandard practice if circumstances demanded. Taxiing a tail dragger you should be weaving if the dimensions of the taxi way permit so as to clear the area ahead.


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1320x550/ab236_501c40b5dfd0d3fcb3675f0a5c8e79c15c7ee9c4.png

[punkalouver]

Standard practice if circumstances demanded. Taxiing a tail dragger you should be weaving if the dimensions of the taxi way permit so as to clear the area ahead.


Well worded post and likely applicable to the subject of the thread. A challenge is when the dimensions of the taxiway I do not permit weaving.

The taxi very slowly option is not particularly realistic when and significant taxi distance is involved.

[sycamore]

Plenty of grass alongside the taxiway....

[uxb99]

Didn't the BBMF Baby Spit chew up a Harvard many years ago?

[IFMU]

A challenge is when the dimensions of the taxiway I do not permit weaving.


It looks like the taxiway is about 50' wide. A P51 has a gear width of 11 or 12 feet. I don't think this was the challenge here.

[First_Principal]

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 :rolleyes: :) 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.

[sycamore]

It would be useful to see any CCTV footage and any ATC clearance chat leading up to the collision,and a diagram of `who`s where`...

[treadigraph]

Didn't the BBMF Baby Spit chew up a Harvard many years ago?

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 (https://www.steemrok.com/steemroknwlistv4.html) from Shell Aviation News - herewith his tale of operating a Spitfire from Bex (https://www.steemrok.com/nw%20san/znwsanvol2v12.html#swit)! )

[Piper_Driver]

How about mounting a camera where the guns were removed in the wing? That should have good forward visibility.

[Jhieminga]

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 (https://www.steemrok.com/steemroknwlistv4.html) from Shell Aviation News - herewith his tale of operating a Spitfire from Bex (https://www.steemrok.com/nw%20san/znwsanvol2v12.html#swit)! )
See here for a Dutch language page with several photos and some bits of accident report (in English): Ongevallen/incidenten 1978 (http://www.hdekker.info/Nieuwe%20map/1978.htm#21.08.1978)

[IFMU]

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.

[Mechta]

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?

[megan]

P-51 in fighting trim had a 16mm camera installed just to the right of the guns in the left wing leading edge, replace with modern camera set up, would that do?

[Mechta]

P-51 in fighting trim had a 16mm camera installed just to the right of the guns in the left wing leading edge, replace with modern camera set up, would that do?

Megan, its fine for straight ahead, but the field of view to the right is blocked by the proximity to the fuselage, as this picture with the labeled gun camera port shows. Mustang Camera Gun Port (rectangular hole on wing leading edge) (https://roberttaylorphotos.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/dsc_4544_edited-2.jpg)
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.

[ATC Watcher]

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.

[Pilot DAR]

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.

[lightonthewater]

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.

[Jhieminga]

See post #31 (https://www.pprune.org/11359867-post31.html) and #32 (https://www.pprune.org/11359886-post32.html) above... :)

[lightonthewater]

Apologies , Jhieminga, should have read the whole thing.Still think it would be a good idea.

[Mechta]

.... A weight on wheels switch could be used to turn the camera off when in flight, to avoid distraction of the pilot. ...

Had the P-63 pilot been able to see 'Texas Raiders' though his blindspot in flight, he and its crew may still be alive.
There are plenty of other in-flight instances when the benefit of awareness outweighs the risk of distraction.


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.


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.

[ATC Watcher]

Had the P-63 pilot been able to see 'Texas Raiders' though his blindspot in flight, he and its crew may still be alive.
.
Do you honestly believe that if the P-63 had a camera the guy would have been looking at a screen during a flight display in a high speed/low altitude maneuver ?

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.

[Mechta]

Do you honestly believe that if the P-63 had a camera the guy would have been looking at a screen during a flight display in a high speed/low altitude maneuver ?

If the reflector gunsight screen is fitted and doing nothing useful, perhaps the image could be projected on to it?
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.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x360/p_63_king_cobra_cockpit_2b712c14da33d2c1e3f5cf6bcf79322e11ea 1883.jpg

[ATC Watcher]

If the reflector gunsight screen is fitted and doing nothing useful, perhaps the image could be projected on to it?
Sure, excellent idea, but with which complexity and costs to get that done ? Mixing 1945 and 2020 technologies is not that easy .
​​​​​​​If it were me, I would want any help I could get to see hidden aircraft
Sure again , but a far cheaper and simplier anticollsion system that a caera / HUD would be if both aircrfaft had been fitted with a traffic alert , like a FLARM that we all in Europe in the gilder community.for instance Unfortunately not working above 250 Kts.,so not made for high peformance aircraft. ..
But again , in a flying display , especially y during a high speed , low level trajectory , trying to catch another aircraft ( the P-51s) and stay within the display line , you are only looking outside , not to a screen , unless it beeps in the heaset ( which the FLARM does)

[India Four Two]

Just an aside on FLARM. I’ve flown four towplanes and five gliders with FLARM.

It is not the universal panacea. Its functionality is highly dependent on antenna type and installation. When it works well it’s great but it’s not a substitute for a good lookout.

[abgd]

Not having used FLARM, would it be useful when flying in formation or would it just be going off all the time?

[India Four Two]

abgd,

I’ve not flown formation with FLARM so I don’t know, but the algorithms are surprisingly sophisticated. It is not just a proximity sensor.

Each unit broadcasts not only location and altitude, but also track, groundspeed, altitude change rate and current turn information. The receiving unit uses this information to predict the track of each aircraft and determine if a collision risk exists.

For example, if circling with a glider at the same altitude but on opposite sides of the thermal, there won’t be any alarm.

If approaching an opposite direction, co-altitude glider on a ridge, you will hear a warning followed by a collision alarm, until the other glider is in your 10 o’clock or so, at which point the algorithm determines you are passing each other and decides there is no more collision risk.

[ATC Watcher]

Just an aside on FLARM.
It is not the universal panacea. Its functionality is highly dependent on antenna type and installation. When it works well it’s great but it’s not a substitute for a good lookout.
We can all agree on that , FLARM is just an addtional tool , it is not a TCAS, , but for the sake of the discussion here , in this accident here FLARM could have maybe helped. as FLARM unlike TCAS works on the ground,. , but for instance it would have definitively work with the collsion in the airshow in the other thread (but as long as the P-63 stayed below 250 Kts)

I have my own aircaft equipped with Power FLARM ( detecting both FLARM and Mode S transponders aircraft) since the start in 2012, so over 10 yaers ago , and all the gliders I fly in my clubs are equipped. I recently upgraded mine with a LX traffic info display , shich looks similar to TCAS display ( distance, azimuth and arrows with vertical distance ) and most impotantly it beeps in your headset when a conflicting traffic is very close. to attarct your attention. with 3 antennas it works extremely well. and saved me on a couple of occasions in around 2000 h flown with it .
@ afgd : would it be useful when flying in formation or would it just be going off all the time?
No you can tow gliders and fly in formations if will not trigger , it will just let you know the traffic is there , it will only trigger if another FLARM equiped aircraft is in an imminent conflicting collision course, . If , like in my case ,you have your aircraft equipped with both FLARM and a mode S transponder , to avoid self detection you just enter in the FLARM menu the icao hexadecimal code of your transponder . The system is quite good now..

[WideScreen]

....
No you can tow gliders and fly in formations if will not trigger , it will just let you know the traffic is there , it will only trigger if another FLARM equiped aircraft is in an imminent conflicting collision course,......
Yep, triggering "only" on potential collisions, though how to find out the potential collision target after the warning, as well, how the software will be able to "predict" an imminent collision, in a situation with varying/circling trajectories (in 3D with highly varying speeds as well) ? Not to say, how to discriminate out all the false-alarms ?

[ATC Watcher]

how to discriminate out all the false-alarms ?
That wwas true on the very first versions with the leds, basically it told you there is somebody conflicting out there , look ouside and change course, and in case multipme targets, it also only warned you of the closest one . .The new Power Flarm dispays like the one which I added now, is discriminatoty , you can choose a typical TCAS-like display, and the alert mode ( white baground with red area to avoid ) . see here : https://www.lxnavigation.com/gliding/powerflarm/traffic-square/

how the software will be able to "predict" an imminent collision, in a situation with varying/circling trajectories
I have no idea, just using it and , again, it works quite well. One major fact not to forget though , it only works if the other target is also FLARM equipped, or in case of Power Flarm , has a Mode S transponder and puts it on..Mandatory I know, but we all know it not always the case in practice.. ULs are a big issue in that respect.

[IFMU]

Not to belabor the obvious to the tailwheel pilots on this thread, but S turns and eyes out on taxi always works. Things happen really slow on the ground.

Disclosure: I have no P51 time. But, I can't see forward on any tailwheel aircraft that I fly.

[uxb99]

(Edit: In the past Discorde has very kindly provide links to some of the late Neil Williams' articles (https://www.steemrok.com/steemroknwlistv4.html) from Shell Aviation News - herewith his tale of operating a Spitfire from Bex (https://www.steemrok.com/nw%20san/znwsanvol2v12.html#swit)! )
Neil Williams is a classic example of how a very experienced, well respected and loved pilot can succumb to human error.
Doesn't matter how many cameras, warnings or gizmos you include human error will still creep in.

[treadigraph]

See here for a Dutch language page with several photos and some bits of accident report (in English): Ongevallen/incidenten 1978 (http://www.hdekker.info/Nieuwe%20map/1978.htm#21.08.1978)
Thank you!

Saw a video snippet of a J-3 Cub chewing its way up the wing of a C152 a few days ago - not sure when the prang was. I'd have thought the view ahead from a Cub on the ground wasn't that bad, though I've only ever been in the back of a J-3 floatplane! If you can't see weave.

[WideScreen]

That wwas true on the very first versions with the leds, basically it told you there is somebody conflicting out there , look ouside and change course, and in case multipme targets, it also only warned you of the closest one . .The new Power Flarm dispays like the one which I added now, is discriminatoty , you can choose a typical TCAS-like display, and the alert mode ( white baground with red area to avoid ) . see here : https://www.lxnavigation.com/gliding/powerflarm/traffic-square/
Yep, the original versions were pretty lame though things improved.

I have no idea, just using it and , again, it works quite well. One major fact not to forget though , it only works if the other target is also FLARM equipped, or in case of Power Flarm , has a Mode S transponder and puts it on..Mandatory I know, but we all know it not always the case in practice.. ULs are a big issue in that respect.
While your description is interesting, it doesn't give an answer to the core question: Will the FLARM be able to cope with a non-standard situation like an air display ?

The false-alarm avoidance algorithms will likely be based on "normal" flying behavior, IE, a predictable flying behavior of all detected airplanes as well a "normal" behavior of "myself". Deviate from that and the algorithms go haywire and false-alarms do become the norm.

Add to that, that, as I wrote before, my estimate is, the P-63 pilot was probably behind the aircraft, with the consequences that alarms (from whatever source, including the airboss) will likely be ignored as being mentally "irrelevant". An aspect that repeatedly shows up in discussions about "behind the aircraft" circumstances.

Not to say, following your link, I do have my doubts, whether a display like the one in your link, will provide sufficient dynamic 4D insight (at a glance) into a developing situation like the one for the P-63, from the top of the climb towards the accident location. If the P-63 pilot would be given a warning, I do expect it to be discarded as a false alarm, since it would be the intention of the approach figure to get close to the B-21, and it can be expected in some moments of time, there will be conflicts detected.

Not to say, we should realize, the factual collision was programmed only shortly before the accident, when the P-63 started a heavily banked turn. Or so to say, without this banked turn of the P-63, there would not have been a collision between the P-63 and B-21, effectively reducing the time between establishing the collision course (with a potential FLARM alarm) and the collision to be only a few seconds.

(Without the banking/turn, there would have been a severe overshoot of the display line, towards the public, though).

Not to say, there would have been already several nuisance alarms, while the P-63 was climbing to the top of the approach figure, due to its prox with the P-51.

[DuncanDoenitz]

Thank you!

I'd have thought the view ahead from a Cub on the ground wasn't that bad, though I've only ever been in the back of a J-3 floatplane! If you can't see weave.

Or tack!

[treadigraph]

Or tack!
Aye aye!

[cavuman1]

Ready About? Comin' About! A commendation to treadigraph for the link to those superb Neil Williams stories!

- Ed

[ATC Watcher]

@ WideScreen While your description is interesting, it doesn't give an answer to the core question: Will the FLARM be able to cope with a non-standard situation like an air display ?

Frankly I do not know,,but , like you, I would think it is not , if we are talking multi aircrfat types simultaneous displays like in Oshkosh. FLARM has been designed initially for gliders ( anti-collision) and helicopters ( cables avoidance , especially in mountains) not for air displays.

That said, the system today gives little false alarms. For instance in a glider if I am in a thermal with 3 or 4 others in very close proximity , once we spiral ( same way) and keep our distances with one another ( something as low as 2-300 ft laterally ) no alram, however if one is catching up on another one ,both will get an alarm . So the system is quite sophisticated. but I do not think it is not made to react for fast , abrup maoneuvers .So it is not so much the false alrams that I think would be the problem but rather the non-detection of the geometry on some targets

This is why I said initially that a system like a FLARM system could help., but not really the exact current FLARM system .

[Pilot DAR]

Hello Posters,

The P51 vs Malibu and P63 at Dallas are both worthy topics of discussion. Could we keep each in it's own topic please, just so the discussion does not get confusing?

My taildragger has the best forward visibility of any fixed wing I have flown - 'cause the engine and prop are behind me! But, yes, when I have taxied the Stearman and Harvard, weaving is the only way you're going to see safely in front.

Thanks, Pilot DAR

[IFMU]

I'd have thought the view ahead from a Cub on the ground wasn't that bad, though I've only ever been in the back of a J-3 floatplane!
A J3 floatplane is in a pretty level attitude. A J3 in the 3 point attitude is not. You don't have forward visibility.

When I was a primary student in a PA12, I had a buddy who was doing his tailwheel training in the same aircraft. He was really tall and I'm not. He insisted to the instructor that he could see forward without weaving. This was true to a point, however one day he missed the end of the taxiway and took out a light. There is always going to be a blind spot in front of you but no problem seeing a little to either side.

[RatherBeFlying]

Dinky FLARM displays are just barely adequate in gliders, but panel space is limited.

Traffic View (https://gliding.lxnav.com/products/trafficview80/) is available in 80mm and is becoming popular in tow planes.

FLARM traffic can also be displayed on glider flight computers which are really handy for strategising. I pick up ADS-B 1080 traffic several miles away and can arrange to stay well clear if I can't make contact on radio.
​​

[sycamore]

There were (probably )3 people who hold some responsibility for the accident/incident....think of it as an RTC...answers on a postcard..