AvWeb blog ref Ghost

[AAFO_WSagar]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

"the pilot had to hold the control stick to the right of center."

If in fact it was "opposite lock", as was posted earlier, the photos would not show the ailerons moving to correct the left over bank, he wouldve had no aileron movement left, and wouldve probably banked right into the ground right there (which in hindsight, _________......well you can fill in that blank).

Sometimes words matter....

No $hit and this is a no bull$hit forum... this is very serious business, a friend died, and his death caused others to die and suffer, I'm simply not going to allow people to misquote and bring their conjecture here in this forum as fact.

If the NTSB said it, fine, quote it.. don't make a case using things that were never said.. or said by some guy you know who knows everything, so now, you do too..

Yes, King, I'm calling you out... show your cards or slink away in the shadows, you and I have crossed paths in the past, you crawl out of your cave in Texas and spew "facts" as though you have your finger on the pulse of what is Air Racing, yet, you admittedly, have never been to the National Championship Air Races.. have you ever even seen ANY air races?..

Prove me wrong... I think it's pretty obvious that you have me very pissed...

Show me I'm wrong if you can....

Gauntlet thrown!

[AAFO_WSagar]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

PS.. I don't really enjoy humiliating people on this forum, however, I will do this with anyone who states opinion as fact...

Once again, gauntlet thrown!

Ain't it amazing how many times I will post when someone gets my dander up!

I'm waiting Chip/King... show me where they say that....

[wyhdah]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

Big difference in "opposite lock" and "right of center". Can someone please point out where it states Jimmy had full right deflection (lock) in a left turn?

[AAFO_WSagar]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

Big difference in "opposite lock" and "right of center". Can someone please point out where it states Jimmy had full right deflection (lock) in a left turn?

I know I'm sort of going off the deep end here with this, nasty PM to King not withstanding but..

Jimmy Leeward was my friend.

Take that as you will, but, I'm not going to allow a publication that I produce and pay for to allow anyone to spew statements that take a touch of fact and blow it up in a way that makes their point sound factual.

National Enquirer of the air, we will never be!

I'm still sooo pissed at King that I'm going to allow my, completely unnecessary response to your message go out under my send finger...

It's after 10 here on the left coast, probably after the guy's bedtime in TX... I think I posted this earlier in another thread.. I read a description of an older person the other day, (as you get older, you read more stuff like that) and the description said the person "does not suffer fools gladly".. what an outstanding phrase...

I think I'm going to make it a Tshirt for myself for comfort.

OK given time difference, and the fact that I've loved to sleep till noon since going through cancer treatment... (who knows, the extra rest might have saved my life??) I'm gonna try to get up early to respond to Chip/King... I seriously don't think there is anywhere in the NTSB report that says it like Chip says it, the difference between "off center" and "in the corner" is so great that, I think explanation of statement as fact just has to have a verifiable confirmation.... OK King.. you've obviously lit my fire, I'm being completely unprofessional by calling you out in public but I can not resist...

I await your response... I'm sure it will be colorful.

[440_Magnum]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

In my many years on this forum, I've tried to mind my place as a non-aviator, not-even-a-railbird but more of a couch-bird fan, and not step in steaming piles of argument... but I'm going to step in one that I probably shouldn't now. If this is how I go out, so be it... Just be mindful that this is my opinion and in no way Gospel.

I think that much of the exaggeration in this thread is exaggeration of what King actually said. Sorry Wayne- I do respect you for putting this thread back up here, but I think you got far more worked up than what King's comment deserves, and I think it should have been left in the open forum to run its course. Especially given his track record as one of the more fact-based (if sometimes wrapped in a wry wit) posters on the board. Specifically, he said, "...with the stick stuffed over in the upper right hand corner of the cockpit. " That's a cut-and-paste. Let's analyze it: It does seem to imply a large stick force, and the language is somewhat more graphical than analytical and yes that means King did leave room for different interpretations of what "stuffed" means. But did King say that the stick was at the limit of travel in those directions? No. Did he say "control reversal?" No. What he implied (to my way of reading with no tie to Jimmy as a friend admittedly) was that unusually large control inputs toward the upper right were required for this airplane. That is very consistent with what I've read, and what others have cited here, in the NTSB report. He (King) also said that Jimmy probably thought it was manageable and continued to fly the aircraft. What's so wrong with making that statement? Of course it is partly speculation, but it is grounded in many references in the NTSB report as to how the AC was OBSERVED to be trimmed and flying. To be brutally frank and honest, I think that statement may cut closest to the core of what went wrong. Many seem offended and take it as a defamation of Jimmy Leeward's memory. I do not. If it is true then at worst I think it was a mistake, but that doesn't tarnish an entire character. We all make poor decisions from time to time, and sometimes a poor decision snowballs into a catastrophe. Its the nature of being human. But the rest of us humans can hopefully learn from all errors- our own and the errors of others. The NTSB report keys on a lack of flight testing, and I think that's also part of what King is getting at. If there had been an independent pilot that had flown GG, would they have noted the trim as a squawk and suggested that it be corrected? Personally, I am beginning to believe that they would. A Skip, a Jackson, a Steve Hinton Sr., a Sanders (either one)... someone approaching the aircraft for purely unbiased evaluation might have reached a very different conclusion about what is manageable and what isn't.



As for AvWeb... YEs, I think that story is more inflammatory than anything King said. The "indications that the aircraft was coming apart" statement, attributed to oil-canning and the canopy twist, in particular, is needlessly sensational, even if based in a truth. Other racers have exhibited oil canning under race stress- who knows how many years the Bearcat and Czech Mate raced with excessive flexure but without failure. But EVEN IN THOSE CASES, it is worth noting that once the crews of the aircraft became aware of the bending (thanks to great air-race photogs), they did take steps to correct the problems. Again, although the GG team might not have been aware of the oil canning, they might have been aware of the torque deflection of the canopy and categorized it as "manageable" for the time being. And that might have been entirely true, given how much cowl twist other racers exhibit. I'd like to see a direct comparison to other P-51s though, since the roundy aircraft typically mount the cowl to an engine mount which can have compliance independent of the fuselage itself. Saying that the Bear or Dreadnought shows a lot of cowl misalignment is not quite comparable to the fixed section of GG's canopy deflecting relative to the moving part, since the former implies compliance in the engine mount and the latter implies flex through the cockpit area of the fuse itself.

And finally... AirRaceFan, when you said "The NTSB would have had nearly identical findings from any of the other top-tier Gold contenders - every aircraft is highly modified and unique in it's own way, they all have decades of history, they all probably have some less than perfect things going on. This sort of thing could have happened to any team." I have to partially disagree. Yes, they ARE all modified in different ways. But I wouldn't assume that they are equal in the quality of preparation. I don't think a Kerch-prepped airplane would have re-used locking nuts anywhere on it, for starters. Yes, many years ago things may have been quite a bit more seat-of-the-pants as people were learning how to modify these birds for racing. But today isn't 1970 and there is a community of respected unlimited pilots out there who could independently evaluate an aircraft. How many pilots have flown and evaluated Dago Red? Voodoo? Dreadnought? Furias? 232? Even Rare Bear and Strega have now been flown by several experienced pilots, not just the owner/pilot/modifier with his set of biases and beliefs about what is tolerable in terms of the aircraft's bad habits for the sake of speed. And maybe even more important, pilots who have been at the stick of many different unlimiteds could contribute an assessment of what is typical and manageable for such a highly strung machine and what is not typical. I think its within bounds to say that none of those unlimiteds named above are likely to have quite the same sort of inherent problems that were found in GG, if for no other reason than that they've had multiple people behind the stick and more comprehensive testing. That's not a personal bias against anyone... its just calling it the way it appears after reading NTSB materials. I guess the lesson that I gain is that while it is still OK (and laudable) to be an owner/pilot/modifier and be unique and creative, its safer and frankly just about necessary to conclude with a test program where someone else gets to take a look at what you're doing and be critical. Does it risk giving away "secret $htuff?" Maybe. And that's a process that will have to be evolved.

[AAFO_WSagar]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

If you lost friend, and someone said something about them in a public forum for which you are responsible for, and you think it is not correct information, and you then ask the person who said it to provide their source for the information and you are told by this person that they would provide the confirmation when they had time.. you think ya might get a bit frustrated?

As I said to someone else, Jimmy Leeward was more than good to me over the years, providing both friendship and opportunity. I think it safe to say, we had a mutual respect of what each other does. I admired him greatly!

His family reads this site.

All I've asked from day one about this subject is that your posts are sensitive to both family and friends of those lost on that day. I want the truth as much as anyone else but, I want that truth to come from unbiased analysis of evidence, not exaggeration of anything within a report.

At the end of the day, I'm the sucker who writes the check that makes it possible for anyone to post anything they want, instantly visible to almost the entire world, around 2000 average daily visitors here then have the chance to happen on and read your words. Since I created this porthole to the world, I feel that I've got the responsibility to ensure that the character of this site is something I can feel good about.

Some of you wanted this thread back, some of you were happy to see it go. I've decided to just let those who want to dissect this unhappy event a week before we go forward for a new race week have their way, you can have it. It is a sensitive enough subject to evoke emotional response out of some, I think I stand as an example of that fact. That said, Keep it civil, keep personal attacks out of it. If you're going to provide "expert analysis" of the report, please be very accurate in your quotations and, source your quotes for reference, where you saw them. This is the only way to responsibly write about this subject.

The original quoted article was vindictive in the way it was written and it contained a ton of opinion and interpretations of evidence that might be categorized as "loose" at best. I think the spirit of that article fueled the mood of this thread. Please, try to take this down a constructive path.

[Leo]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

"Right of center" could be a quarter inch or simply a little pressure! Hell, I would think ""stuffed in the corner" at speed. no matter what the trim condition, would be impossible or catastrophic just by itself, and not what could have been going on here! Large control movements are for slow speed. I'm with you Wayne, the facts, just the facts, anything else is BS.

[wingman]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

"The original quoted article was vindictive in the way it was written and it contained a ton of opinion and interpretations of evidence that might be categorized as "loose" at best"

I totally agree, Wayne...

I also agree with the Haskin brothers and with Chip that an event like this SHOULD be examined in depth, dispassionately, and lessons learned. Personal feelings about the pilot, builder, or airplane should not interfere with this examination. I do think Chip's choice of words in the controversial post was poor, but his point and his viewpoint were absolutely worth considering.

I'm glad this thread came back, as I missed it the first time around. I actually think it (as it stands now) has been an excellent discussion. I have learned a lot about the event, and about the airplane. I hope the thread will be allowed to remain as is.

Thanks, Wayne, for reposting the thread...

Neal

[MRussell]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

Thanks for putting the thread back up.

[wyhdah]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

And there you have it...

As Big Jim said, Jimmy was a nice enough guy and liked (loved?) by many just as so many do Tiger and Lyle. He was also a seasoned pilot and it is on this point that (sorry, but no other way to put it) that he failed himself, his crew and race fans. He KNEW that no properly sorted a/c should require 'opposite lock' to fly correctly and yet he pressed on.

I guarantee you that Stevo, Brent, Will, Stu, Matt and all of the others would never have flown an a/c in this condition.

I am NOT saying Jimmy wanted to crash, but rather that he was blinded by his desire to win. Not the first and sadly likely not the last as we are all human and subject to our foibles.

440_Magnum: Here is the quote from Al Baby.....request for information still stands, where does the report say Jimmy had " 'opposite lock' " in a left hand turn? I find this cross control interesting if indeed it required that all the way around the course. Once again big difference from 'left of center'.

I know it is required sometimes, just look at Will from Micheal's video in the Voodoo thread, but I cannot find where the report said that plane required that control input all the time. Remember that plan flew the year before.

[Roger Cain]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

Wayne, have followed this from the start, thanks for putting it back up. I was standing next to you when it happened, no doubt about your friendship with Jimmy, followed by much pain.

[FlyKidChris]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

Regarding the undocumented modifications - when was the last wing clip made on this plane? My memory isn't what it once was, but it seems to me that it was before Leeward's purchase - is that right?

So does a later owner bear a burden of documenting what happened before his or her ownership?

I've read the NTSB report on this tragedy only once so far and it notes that the boil-off cooling modification was documented.

Is there a conclusive list of what modifications were made to this airplane over the years and who made them?

I'm still trying to reach a fuller understanding of how this tragedy happened - any help would be appreciated.

P.S. Wayne, thanks for letting this thread "run."

[John]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

Wasn't GG raced in 2010? ...winning the Bronze?
The NTSB reported it's findings as "Probable Cause" ...key word: "probable".

I think they(NTSB) did the best they could in the alloted time. The P-51 has 1930's-40"s technology, and is not perfect -but pretty good for what it is expected to do these days. Who ever heard of 17 G's on one? Hopefully the safety of the future modified racers will be improved from all this. Perhaps an engineering solution will be worked out for the trim tab flutter issues on fast Mustangs /besides/ the importance of proper maintenance. I wish human lives had not been involved.

[Mluvara]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

For those that missed the NTSB briefs at Reno this year, or want to better understand the NTSB's findings, one more document was released today that summarizes much of the investigation and aims to tell a story. It's worth a read.

"AIRWORTHINESS ADDENDUM 3 1 WPR11MA454
A. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Addendum is to summarize factual information from all the different reports and studies written for the investigation in one document. In many cases scientific and engineering principles are introduced to explain effects and provide clarification."

http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/document.cfm?docID=378437&docketID=51746&mkey=81814

Michael

[FlyKidChris]

Re: AvWeb blog ref Ghost

Michael,

Thanks for your post and thanks for posting the link to the addendum. It's quite readable, even for a non-engineer such as myself.

As I recall, it was your telemetry system that was onboard G.G. and as such, provided significant data that is part of this report. I think we'll all benefit (learn) from it, so again, thank you.

Blue skies,
Chris