Hi all,
I’m a little late to the computer, but here are my viewes.

In my view warbird fighters SHOULD be flown in the way they were ment to fly, that is showing mild aerobatics at airshows. I’m not talking unlimited world class aerobatics here, just loops, barrel rolls and cuban eights. These manuveres are way inside the performance limits of the aircraft and structural integrity should not even enter the discussion! I’m going to open a can of worms here, but lets face it folks, most of the “warbirds” flying to day are only highly accurate replicas were, sometimes, the only original piece of metal in the aircraft is the data plate! And don’t get me wrong, I value them immensely. They give me a window to the past. Most of these aircraft are built to better than the original manufacturers standard, even though an odd piece of the original aircraft might be used somewere along the way. To all intends and purposes these are new aircraft and immensly strong at that! And it shows! I can not remember a single sturctural failure on a “warbird” for a long time now.

The problem with the warbirds are the PILOTS. And no, I’m not going to attack them as a whole, just point out some very painful facts. Most of the pilots flying “warbirds” are top of the cream when it comes to flying, and all of them have very impressive records flying in the service or in civvie street. But flying a safe display in an aircraft like, lets say a Mustang, has a lot to do with proficency on type. Lets look at some facts. An aircraft looses a lot of energy during the first part of a display after a crooked wing-over, pilot continues with display at or below minimum height and too slow. Enters a looping manuver, stalls out at the top and applies pro-spin control inputs. Aircraft spins into the ground. Pilot a former Red Arrows pilot and currently working as a pilot with an airline. Total time on type last 12 months: less than 5 hours! Impressive record with lots of experience in general, but sadly lacking in proficency on type.
Let’s take another. A private owner is taking his favourate aircraft for a flight after a lull in the flying during the winter. Approach is too fast, lands long and looses directional control during landing. Ends up in soft drainage by the side of the runway, aircraft turns over, pilot killed. The pilot was highly experienced in general, having flown a lot of “warbirds” from his private collection, but sadly lacking in recent experince on type.
Another! A warbird fighter dishes out of a roll and crashes. It was the second time in the same display, the first one leaving the pilot low and slow but he still continues the display. The pilot was highly experinced fast jet pilot with the services, had flown a biplane for the last three display seasons. Time on type, three months but no flight time on type given.
During the summer we lost two twin engined bombers after loosing an engine on final approach. Both were probably loaded well below service standard. Both crashed. How much of a single engine training on type did the pilots have? I don’t know, but it strikes me as kind of strange to crash a lightly loaded aircraft on final. And I would like to say I have the experience to make a comment like that, having hundreds of hours as an instructor on twins and currently flying something a little heavier.

So here we are, in a Catch22. The “warbirds” are crashing because it is so expensive to maintain pilot proficency, and the cost keeps spiralling because of (among other things) high accident rate! How do we solve the problem??

Hope I didn’t make you too mad,
Galdri

Here is something for you. Just did a simple Google search.

http://www.pimaair.org/exp_vp1.htm

http://www.zianet.com/fwagoner/

http://www.evansair.com/

The internet is an amazing thing 😀 😀 😀

What can I say…….Superb! Absolutly Superb!

Thanks for sharing these photos with us Kenneth.

Galdri.

Flood,
You say the Hornet has Merlins 130/131’s. Ok. that’s fair enough. It is what all the literature says. There is only one problem. The Icelandic Historic Avaition Socity has a Merlin deffinatly out of a Sea Hornet and it is clearly marked Merlin 134! How does that figure??

Just adding a twist to the story,
Galdri

The aircraft on the ship are almost certainly Corsairs and Avangers.

On the aft deck are mostly Corsairs but there is at least one Avanger there as well. On the forward deck are two Avangers visible.

Hope this helps, rather than confuse!

Galdri

Thanks for that Moggy and futurshox,

In my opinion the CAP is probably the best GA aircraft yet built! It can do everything reasonably well. It is relatively fast (does about 115 kts on 7 gph or 130 kts on 10.5 gph) and has an endurance of almost 5 hours in economy cruise. It will take full fuel and two average male occupants plus a modest amount of baggage when loaded to normal category standards. However a little care is needed when planning an aerobatic flight with two up and parachutes, in which case the fuel is limited to about 1:40 as not to exeed the aerobatic category loads.

As an aerobatic aircraft, it is reasonably capable. I think you would have to be a professional aerobatic ace to use everything the aircraft has to offer. Even with my modest aerobatic capabilities I´ve managed reasonable standings in the aircraft in the intermediate category.

It is also the perfect aircraft for the sunday flight around the circut, with light, responsive and perfectly harmonized controls coupled with unparallel visibility.

The downsides of the aircraft are mainly a weak gear arrangement that can easily damage the wing in the hands of ham-firsted pilots during heavy landings. It is also very slippery, and will build up speed at an alarming rate when the nose is pointed at the ground. This has caused some accidents when inexperienced aerobatic pilots have overstressed it during high speed pullouts.

This is, I think, the perfect aircraft for most private owners, but not really suited as club hacks or flight school machines.

Regards,
Galdri

I always thought “ATP” stood for Advanced Technical Problem