Everybody hates lawyers until they need one. (And I’m not a lawyer, I’m a writer.)

Was/is there a disclaimer on the spectator tickets and at the venue?

In the U. S., at least, such disclaimers are worthless as anything but toilet paper.

I would be surprised to see this go to Flying Heritage due to the non-original engine. Yagen seems more logical……anyone know for sure?

See post #67. If you know who Steve Atkin is, you know it isn’t going to Yagen.

Your comment said nothing about the PROP being the same as the one on the Monino example, only that they both turned clockwise as seen from the front…

Not sure either how you can tell it’s the same prop just from looking at a photo without taking some pretty precise measurements, either. Can you be sure it’s not a handed P-38 prop, as I originally suggested might be a possibility?

One of the two Allisons in a P-38 turned “backward,” which of course is like talking about Brits who drive on “the wrong side” of the road… Perhaps they used P-38 blades?

I can’t think of a conventional GA airplane, single or twin, that could make SFO-HNL without ferry tanks. My Falco–not that it was particularly long-range–had to go from Oregon to its new owner in Melbourne via the Atlantic, Europe, North Africa, Middle East, India, Malay Peninsula, PNG and then all the way across Australia because it couldn’t make Hawaii even with extra tankage.

OK, not being a pilot i ask this because i don’t know

Assumedly he was at least at some point at a reasonable cruise altitude–8,500 feet, say–and I’m guessing that he had such a miserable headwind up there that he realized he’d never make it with the fuel remaining. (I read in a U. S. paper that he first admitted the problem when he was 500 miles out.) So maybe his best choice indeed was to slowly drift down with the mixture set at long-range cruise (which he almost certainly had as his setting all the while) and get into ground effect. Ground effect–i.e. within about half a wingspan of the sea, though certainly not necessarily “inches,” as the Daily Mail had it–would reduce drag and therefore let you fly farther on the same amount of fuel.

His fuel flow would have been substantially less at altitude, but his headwind would have been substantially more. So maybe flying in ground effect was the best idea. After all, he came within a comparative hair (13 miles) of making it, while at 500 miles out he figured he wouldn’t.

I have about 500 hours of C310 time, by the way, in a variety of 310s.

Wing flutter? And what exactly would “wing flutter” be? Movable control surfaces flutter, wings don’t. At least not on Stinson Voyagers. (My very first tailwheel airplane, come to think of it.)

Very short runway, got the tail up just fine and climbed reasonably strongly once he was airborne. Sporty, admittedly…