Reno Air Races

[pchapman 279]

Quote

thanks. What kind of fuel and fuel load would he have had? Anyone?

EAA's Sport Aviation magazine had an article on Galloping Ghost in its May '11 issue. (maxmadmax provided the link; don't know if it is active for non EAA members)

Leeward said he runs 150 gallons of fuel and 150 gallons of 50/50 methanol water. (For the boil off cooling system since the belly radiator was removed.)

I don't know how that might vary for a given race, but the fuel number sounds in the right ballpark for their kind of horsepower for a short race flight.

With the clipped wings on that aircraft, it stalls at about 130 mph, and final approach is done at 190. A hot ship.

From aviation sites I've seen, I'm hearing it said that the telemetry was showing an 11g pull up. (There's a forum called "Hangar Talk" that seems to get some pilots involved or interested in air racing, so they've had some of higher quality discussion that I've seen.)

In some of the pics out there, one could see the pilot's emergency parachute canopy streaming out after the impact, as part of the debris being scattered.

I've attached a google maps view I found on the web of the race course. Even though the course is always seen to be "out in the desert", there sure are a few subdivisions not that far outside the course -- as well as the main airport pits / spectator area, when one considers where the turn points are. Everything may be legit when it comes to FAA rules on X feet between the aircraft maneuvering area and spectators, but there sure isn't much buffer when one is playing at up to 500 mph.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Quote

Speed is life. At 500mph you've got a large margin of error for a lot of failures, even at 50 feet off the deck.

Departure of a control surface just doesn't happen to be one of them.

I know. I went to Reno about 10 years ago and saw a kit plane crash about 0.5 seconds after its tailplane buckled. I also saw more warbirds than I can remember land safely after catastrophic engine and hydraulics failure at 50 feet off the deck.

In light of that I am simply refuting the statement that any form of failure at high speed/ low alt will be fatal, I am not asserting that any form of failure at high speed/ low alt is safe.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Calvin19 0]

Quote

Quote

The simple fact you're some idiot who thought going and sitting within a mile of unlimited class near-mach race airplanes was just as safe as watching football on tv means your opinion has no value.

Who are you talking to here?

Not you quade

I was addressing the people who PAID to go to see that show and are not "traumatized beyond repair for the audacity of show organizers to allow people to watch"

[Calvin19 0]

Looks like 10 fatalities now,

(sorry, not fatalities, murders)

[captain1976 0]

Airshows should be banned!

Take it from an ex airshow performer, they are too fuckin dangerous and should be restricted to static displays only with maybe an occasional flyby from the Blue Angels.

I have lost many more friends to airshow accidents than I have to skydiving, and the toll they take in pilots as well as spectators is unacceptable.

You live more in the few minutes of skydiving than many people live in their lifetime

[Calvin19 0]

Quote

Airshows should be banned!

Take it from an ex airshow performer, they are too fuckin dangerous and should be restricted to static displays only with maybe an occasional flyby from the Blue Angels.

I have lost many more friends to airshow accidents than I have to skydiving, and the toll they take in pilots as well as spectators is unacceptable.

I cannot tell, are you being serious?

-SPACE-

[sacex250 0]

Quote

Airshows should be banned!

Take it from an ex airshow performer, they are too fuckin dangerous and should be restricted to static displays only with maybe an occasional flyby from the Blue Angels.

I have lost many more friends to airshow accidents than I have to skydiving, and the toll they take in pilots as well as spectators is unacceptable.

I believe Reno's accident was the first involving a spectator fatality in the US since the 1950s. So much for that argument.

Banning airshows for the sake of the pilots is rather dubious, don't you think.

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[riggerrob 643]

"

Quote

... What kind of fuel and fuel load would he have had? Anyone?

"

.....................................................................
140 0ctane or better
Maybe an hour's worth of fuel, just enough for warm-up, race and (to be legal) and 30 minutes reserve.

[billeisele 130]

haven't seen any discussion on the pilot age/physical condition to manage the stresses of this type flying or the ability of the plane to handle all the performance mods that had been done

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[Beerlight 0]

Just an observation, but not much in a post-impact fire.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Just an observation, but not much in a post-impact fire

If I'm not mistaken, the plane was either rolling onto final or was rounding the last pylon of the race, so you can expect a minimum fuel load at that point in the race.

I have no first hand knowledge of this, but my guess is that they don't carry much more than they're going to need for the race, and I have a feeling there are no fuel reserves required for these planes during a race. It's entirely possible the tanks were close to dry by this point in the race. Given the size of the impact area, the small quantity of fuel would have burned off rather quickly.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I believe Reno's accident was the first involving a spectator fatality in the US since the 1950s. So much for that argument.

An airshow is one thing, and if you pay attention to the layout of most airshows, the crowd is on one side of a line, and the performers tend to stay on the other side of the line. Additionally, the majority of movements are made perpendicular or away from the line, so if there is a problem the plane won't carry into the crowd.

The races, on the other hand, have the spectators on the outside of the course, so if any of the planes have a problem during a high-g turn, the tendency will be for the plane (or the debris) to continue outward (thanks Newton) toward the crowd, not hold the turn.

Of course, that's not at all what happened here, but that's the primary danger in these situations. Anytime you have a plane moving at high speed toward a crowd, the possiblity of it ending up in the crowd exists.

[sacex250 0]

Quote

Quote

I believe Reno's accident was the first involving a spectator fatality in the US since the 1950s. So much for that argument.

An airshow is one thing, and if you pay attention to the layout of most airshows, the crowd is on one side of a line, and the performers tend to stay on the other side of the line. Additionally, the majority of movements are made perpendicular or away from the line, so if there is a problem the plane won't carry into the crowd.

The races, on the other hand, have the spectators on the outside of the course, so if any of the planes have a problem during a high-g turn, the tendency will be for the plane (or the debris) to continue outward (thanks Newton) toward the crowd, not hold the turn.

Of course, that's not at all what happened here, but that's the primary danger in these situations. Anytime you have a plane moving at high speed toward a crowd, the possiblity of it ending up in the crowd exists.

The main spectator area at Reno is very similar to an airshow in that there's a crowd line set back a similar distance from the show line. The racers don't get any closer to the showline than airshow performers but spend much more time further away from the main spectators. Air Race spectators don't spend quite as much time looking straight up as airshow spectators do; the air racers are very close to the ground and if an aircraft has a catastrophic problem it's not going to travel far before it hits the ground. In this case, the P-51 was in a steep bank when it pitched-up which sent it to the inside of the course before it rolled to the right and climbed towards the crowd at which point it was a pilotless machine.

I'd say at airshows there are many more times when an aircraft is pointed at the crowd during even more extreme turns than at Reno. An F-22 demonstration and the Blue Angels come to mind. At both the air races and airshows there are always areas where there are groups of spectators, homes, and other buildings that are often overflown.

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[Calvin19 0]

Quote

haven't seen any discussion on the pilot age/physical condition to manage the stresses of this type flying or the ability of the plane to handle all the performance mods that had been done

Obviously, the pilot was not able to manage the acceleration, and the aircraft was not able to handle the speed.

I don't think I am going out on a limb here by assuming the cause of the crash was:

-incapacitation of the pilot by massive unexpected acceleration (>10g) after an elevator trim tab (extremely important*) separated from the airplane. This can be shown through the pre-impact photographs of the trim tab missing from elevator, the pre-impact photograph of cockpit with no visible pilot (hunched over, unconscious from acceleration) the tailwheel being extended (I believe there is no 'up lock' on the tailwheel retract system like there is on the mains) as well as the extremely aggressive, visibly out of control pitch up then over maneuver immediately before impact, the lack of mayday call, and the impact point being the only populated area for miles.


*the elevator on the stock mustang is fairly standard, with a hinged trim tab and friction lock. this adjusts the pitch-stability point aerodynamically, as opposed to a bungee or spring trim that is on most 'yaw' trim systems. The reason for this is the wide ranges of desirable pitch stability speeds needed in some airplanes, where as the rudder trim range is fairly limited.
Because the trim is aerodynamic, it's force requirement, as well as tab deflection setting, changes drastically with different speeds. Easy job for a trim tab on the trailing edge of the elevator. BUT, if the friction lock slips, (or the tab flutters off [in some of the pre-accident pics it looks like the trim tab is partially detached, fluttering violently, then disappears]), the elevator control forces are returned to whatever the neutral trim point is on the plane. In a 400+mph race, this is most likely in a fairly unstable point. Aircraft loaded for stability would have the CG well ahead of the COL, but in a race the CG will be adjusted for most efficiency at speed, so it could be fairly aft (or forward, depending on how [critical] mach interacts with the sub-mach wing, I have no idea)

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

.

I don't think I am going out on a limb here by assuming the cause of the crash was:

-incapacitation of the pilot by massive unexpected acceleration (>10g) after an elevator trim tab (extremely important*) separated from the airplane. This can be shown through the pre-impact photographs of the trim tab missing from elevator, the pre-impact photograph of cockpit with no visible pilot (hunched over, unconscious from acceleration) the tailwheel being extended (I believe there is no 'up lock' on the tailwheel retract system like there is on the mains) as well as the extremely aggressive, visibly out of control pitch up then over maneuver immediately before impact, the lack of mayday call, and the impact point being the only populated area for miles.


*the elevator on the stock mustang is fairly standard, with a hinged trim tab and friction lock. this adjusts the pitch-stability point aerodynamically, as opposed to a bungee or spring trim that is on most 'yaw' trim systems. The reason for this is the wide ranges of desirable pitch stability speeds needed in some airplanes, where as the rudder trim range is fairly limited.
Because the trim is aerodynamic, it's force requirement, as well as tab deflection setting, changes drastically with different speeds. Easy job for a trim tab on the trailing edge of the elevator. BUT, if the friction lock slips, (or the tab flutters off [in some of the pre-accident pics it looks like the trim tab is partially detached, fluttering violently, then disappears]), the elevator control forces are returned to whatever the neutral trim point is on the plane. In a 400+mph race, this is most likely in a fairly unstable point. Aircraft loaded for stability would have the CG well ahead of the COL, but in a race the CG will be adjusted for most efficiency at speed, so it could be fairly aft (or forward, depending on how [critical] mach interacts with the sub-mach wing, I have no idea)

Keep in mind, planes are trimmed for an airspeed. Nose up or nose down trim is really setting the speed at which the airplane will hold itself (more or less) level and stable without any control pressures.
If you have trim set for cruise, the plane will hold that speed. Increase or decrease the power and the plane will climb or descend (respectively) at the trimmed cruise speed.
On approach, the plane will need to be trimmed nose up for the slower speed, or the pilot would need to hold quite a lot of rear pressure on the yoke
(I know Calvin19, being a pilot, probably knows most of this, but I wanted to make it clear for the non-pilots)

I'd guess neutral trim (or trim without the trim tab on the elevator) would be significanlty lower than the 400+ kts that the plane was going.

In other words, he had tons of nose down trim cranked in to fly at race speeds. Once the trim tab departed, the trim speed would have been a lot, lot lower.
The plane would have tried to go to that trim speed, and violently pitched up.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

Quote

Airshows should be banned!

Take it from an ex airshow performer, they are too fuckin dangerous and should be restricted to static displays only with maybe an occasional flyby from the Blue Angels.

I have lost many more friends to airshow accidents than I have to skydiving, and the toll they take in pilots as well as spectators is unacceptable.

I cannot tell, are you being serious?

I hope not-with all that experience he should know the difference between an airshow and an air race.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

Looks like 10 fatalities now,

(sorry, not fatalities, murders)

Are you kidding or just clueless?

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Airshows should be banned!
Take it from an ex airshow performer, they are too fuckin dangerous and should be restricted to static displays only with maybe an occasional flyby from the Blue Angels.
I have lost many more friends to airshow accidents than I have to skydiving, and the toll they take in pilots as well as spectators is unacceptable.

I cannot tell, are you being serious?

I hope not-with all that experience he should know the difference between an airshow and an air race.

Actually, when it comes to getting exceptions from the FAA to hold either, there isn't a lot of difference. This is based in history (1930s-40ish) when for the most part they frequently were held at the same venues and on the same days.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[futuredivot 0]

When it comes to having four legs there's not much difference between a mouse and a giraffe, but you'd have to be pretty stupid not to notice that they're not the same.
Next...

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[normiss 800]

New video showing the impact

This ain't pretty. Impact sounds much like a 'splat' more than anything.

[Calvin19 0]

Quote

Quote

Looks like 10 fatalities now,

(sorry, not fatalities, murders)

Are you kidding or just clueless?

I was kidding.

I am commenting on the people who are amazed and appalled that anyone is ever killed by accident.

What did these people expect to happen? It does not take an aerospace degree to figure out that being anywhere near propeller driven airplanes going 500mph is dangerous.

Edit: I believe that airshows and air races are very interesting and worthwhile. If this kind of air race crash happened a thousand more times it would kill no one but the pilot. No regulation should change.

[squirrel 0]

(just posting, not responding to anyone specifically.)

I am hoping to make it to the reno races someday, so I hope they are not banned. I accept the danger, just like I do when I skydive, fly, scuba, ride my motorcycle or do anything else in life. Its my choice, and should always be.

Curious, are there "acceptance of risk" terms on the back of the tickets, like there are on ski lift tickets? (which I would bet most did not even know are there.)

________________________________
Where is Darwin when you need him?

[futuredivot 0]

Well then, if you ever make it out-look me up. I would tell you that I'd buy you a drink, but we keep a pretty good bar stocked in the RV

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[quade 4]

Quote

When it comes to having four legs there's not much difference between a mouse and a giraffe, but you'd have to be pretty stupid not to notice that they're not the same.
Next...

Right, because at an air RACE you'll see aircraft flying at high speed in circles and at an air SHOW . . . you'll see aircraft flying around at high speed in circles and doing hammer head stalls.

Seriously . . . from a safety and event stand point, there's very little difference.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

rom a safety and event stand point, there's very little difference.

Sorry dude, you're wrong on that-I'm working on our airSHOW briefing right now-different, trust me

You are only as strong as the prey you devour