Wanna Ride in an ME-262?

[Larry Fulwider]

Too bad, the FAA says ME-262 and the Fiesler Storch are not "historically significant aircraft", and won't let them in the air. You're outa luck!

Collings Foundation

As many of you know, Collings is one of the major restorers of WW II (and other historic) aircraft. Like some other similar organizations, they tour the country with restored aircraft, offering rides, static tours, and tons of information. Here is an e-mail from yesterday:

WE NEED YOUR HELP

The FAA recently denied the Collings Foundation's request for flight exemptions for the F-4 Phantom, A-4 Skyhawk, Me262 and Fieseler Co. Fi-156 Storch.
We need a FAA exemption in order to accept donations for flight experiences in these historic aircraft.
Our unique living history programs for these aircraft will be dead in their tracks without these critical exemptions.

FAA Conclusions:

"Collings has included four aircraft in its request that do not meet the requirements for an exemption. The FAA’s “Exemptions for Passenger Carrying Operations Conducted for Compensation and Hire in Other Than Standard Category Aircraft” (72 FR 57196; 10/09/07) policy states that aircraft must meet the test of being historically significant in the context of U.S. aeronautical history. The Fieseler Co. Fi-156 Storch is a World War II German reconnaissance aircraft that does not meet the policy requirement of being a historically significant aircraft. Therefore, the petitioner’s request to include the Fieseler Co. Fi-156 Storch in this exemption is denied.
The Classic Fighter Me-262 is a replica of a World War II German aircraft that does not meet the policy requirement of being a historically significant aircraft. Therefore, the petitioner’s request to include the Classic Fighter Me-262 in this exemption is denied.

Collings Foundation's Response:

In denying the addition of Me262 and Fiesler Storch, the FAA concluded that “in the context of U.S. aeronautical history” neither the Fi-156 Storch nor the Me-262 satisfied “the policy requirement of being a historically significant aircraft.” The Fi-156 Storch and Me-262 denial by the FAA was arbitrary and contrary to FAA policy.

"An aircraft that was not made by a U.S. manufacturer may be considered for an exemption if the operational and maintenance history is adequately documented (72 FR 57197)."

There is no requirement in the FAA's policy 72 FR 57197 stating that the historical significance be "in the context of U.S. aeronautical history".

The Storch and Me-262 aircraft are most definitely historically significant, certainly more so that many aircraft already approved for flight exemptions! See Subject A in Application for Exemption Reconsideration document for detailed clarification.

FAA Conclusions:

"While the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom and the McDonnell Douglas TA-4J may meet the historically significant test, the FAA must consider that permitting the public to experience flights in an aircraft that while in U.S. military service required the installation of an ejection seat raises a safety concern that has not been adequately addressed. Until the petitioner provides sufficient information on the means by which it ensures an equivalent level of safety, the FAA will not grant an exemption authorizing operations with the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom and the McDonnell Douglas TA-4J. Therefore, the petitioner’s request to include the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom and the McDonnell Douglas TA-4J in this exemption is denied."

Collings Foundation's Response:

Regarding the A-4 and F-4 ejection seat training program: The Collings Foundation already has an ejection seat training program that was APPROVED BY THE FAA. In actuality, our ejection seat training program goes well beyond the standard United States Air Force program. We ensure the total understanding, compliance and competency of the ejection seat protocol and procedures. See Subject B in Application for Exemption Reconsideration document for detailed clarification.

What this means:

Currently, we cannot offer Flight Experiences in the Me-262, F-4 Phantom, A-4 Skyhawk and Feisler Storch. Without the ability to offer flight experiences in these aircraft we will not be able to cover the operational expense. Thus, these unique aviation treasures and living history programs surrounding these aircraft will not be accessible to the general public.
To see the full document from the FAA outlining the denial click here.
To see the rules the FAA established to which they should have followed click here.

How you can help:

Show your support! We need EVERYONE who receives this to act. Tell your friends and family! Aviation heritage is at stake. Call, email or write to the FAA, your Congressman and Senator. Feel free to reference points listed in our Exemption Reconsideration document

Call or send an email or letter to:
Mr. John Allen, FAA Director of Flight Standards - john.allen@faa.govOrville Wright Bldg.(FOB10A)
FAA National Headquarters
800 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20591
Room 802
Tel: 202-267-8237

Mr. Randy Babbitt, FAA Administrator - randy.babbitt@faa.gov
Orville Wright Bldg.(FOB10A)
FAA National Headquarters
800 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20591
Room 1010
Tel: 202-267-3111
Please CC email to the Collings Foundation at: response@collingsfoundation.org

            Larry Fulwider

[Paul Smith]

I have to support the FAA, with the exception of the Fliesher Storck.

Jet fighters are risky bidness, best reserved for The Armed Forces.  The FAA did their job, protecting the people from needless risk.  If you want to fly one, go to your local recruiting office.  You will do your Air Force or Navy training over desert or water, not over local communities that host air shows.

In the past (middle 1970's as I recall), a privately-owned Sabre jet crashed on takeoff in Sacaramento, California, hitting a Farrel's Ice Cream Parlor filled with customers, mostly children, and burned them to death.  The resulting corrective action has been to limit private flying and owneership of fighters to the lowest possible level.  Just doing their job.

I went through ejection seat training in The Air Force and it wasn't the quick & dirty thing that passengers on joy rides will sign off on.  I doubt they will be willing/able the pay the price of the real thing, including screening the passengers down to those with the physical condition required to survive.  How about the the parachute training (the next step after ejection).

On course, apart from what happens to the paying customer when he punches out, the real issue is the people in the building that gets hit by the empty fighter.

[billbyles]

I have to support the FAA, with the exception of the Fliesher Storck.

Jet fighters are risky bidness, best reserved for The Armed Forces.  The FAA did their job, protecting the people from needless risk.  If you want to fly one, go to your local recruiting office.  You will do your Air Force or Navy training over desert or water, not over local communities that host air shows.

In the past (middle 1970's as I recall), a privately-owned Sabre jet crashed on takeoff in Sacaramento, California, hitting a Farrel's Ice Cream Parlor filled with customers, mostly children, and burned them to death.  The resulting corrective action has been to limit private flying and owneership of fighters to the lowest possible level.  Just doing their job.

I went through ejection seat training in The Air Force and it wasn't the quick & dirty thing that passengers on joy rides will sign off on.  I doubt they will be willing/able the pay the price of the real thing, including screening the passengers down to those with the physical condition required to survive.  How about the the parachute training (the next step after ejection).

On course, apart from what happens to the paying customer when he punches out, the real issue is the people in the building that gets hit by the empty fighter.

Hi Paul,

I have to agree with you on the safety aspect of flying these high-performance jet fighters with what will be mostly non-qualified passengers.  A corollary to this issue is that there will likely be very few paying passengers who will be able to afford even a half-hour flight in an F-4 Phantom II.  The direct operating costs associated with flying a Phantom will exceed $6,000/hour, not including engine(s)  O/H.  I know from experience that there are not many customers who will pony up the cost of flying in one of these.  Out here at Chino Airport in So. Cal. a 30 minute ride in a P-51 Mustang is over $1,000; a Phantom II, a nearly unobtanium Me-262, etc. will be hugely more costly.  I can't imagine that the few flights that will be sold in these airplanes will justify the operating/restoration/maintenance cost, let alone the safety issues.

You can sign up for a ride in a Mig-29 or a Sukhoi-27 jet fighter in Russia or Ukraine and, after ground training (of unknown duration or quality) get about two hours of flight time.  The cost for this program has been in the neighborhood of $50,000 US, plus you pay for the transportation to the site in Russia or Ukraine.  

[Mike Keville]

...or you could pony-up $20 million and go to the ISS.

[billbyles]

...or you could pony-up $20 million and go to the ISS.

Yeah, imagine the BASE jump (or bungee jump) you could do from that altitude!  Cheap at half the price.

[Chris McMillin]

Interestingly, my friend Pat McGarry has been flying the Collings Foundations P-51 this summer and they have given enough rides to change an engine. That's a 1000 hour engine time between overhaul period. Pat told me he gave 15 hours of rides, usually 1/2 hour, in one three day period. They are very popular at 2200 bucks per 1/2 hour.

Their B-17, B-24 and B-25 rides are also very popular and the Collings Foundation's operations have a very good safety record.

What many people do not know is that the F-4 and A-4 have been flying with the Collings Foundation for 10 and 15 years respectively on the airshow circuit. They are usually flown by ex-military pilots as far as I know. The time I saw the F-4 fly at the Reno Air Races it was flown by some ex-High Rollers RF-4 pilots and of course the really cool flying in the early 2000's by Robin Olds.

The reasons given by the Fed to deny the four additional airplanes operation under the Exemption seem bogus, by their very definition. There is something afoot that is keeping the Administrator from allowing the airplanes to operate the way the Collings want to operate them, and it is not what the Fed listed. My only idea about any big differences in the types of aircraft already operated under the Exemption (which is to take money to defray costs of operation, the jets, Storch and 262 already operate with crew only above our hallowed land), is that the Mustang and B-25 are in the Limited (Standard) category. The B-17 and B-24 are in Experimental however. Since the four additional aircraft are all Experimental Category airplanes, maybe the Fed doesn't want the Collings Foundation to operate additional airplanes in that Category under the Exemption. If so, they should have simply written their denial that way, not something that contradicts it's own Fed rules.

I know that it took some congressional pressure to get an airworthiness certificate for the F-4 when they first got it flying. It is getting harder and harder to exercise out liberties in this country, even if it's something as patriotic as displaying an airworthy F-4 Phantom II to the masses. Nanny mentality advocates are suprising here on Stunt Hangar. Probably not something that anyone really wants to propagate. It's just part of the pile-on mentality, huh?

To Mr. Paul Smith. If the Fed wanted to keep all of the innocents and children safe, it would ban automobiles as they kill 45,000 people every single year.  The reality of jet fighter airplane crash fatalities is that they are so low in number that one must go back to the 1972 Sacramento accident to find the proper sensationalistic horror.     

Chris...

[Chris McMillin]

Bill,
The 262 is a new build. It has CJ-605 engines out of the Lear for power. The F-4 and A-4 have been operating for years with the blessing of the Administrator. What are a few tuna rides to defray the cost? What, really and practically, is the difference between the WWII and jet vehicles? The F-4 is twin engined and the A-4 has all manual flight controls with a little boost. Plus, as you say, the limited exposure of the minimal operations is statistically a better bet for not having an accident. The FAA is being inconsistent in my estimation. They aren't demanding all passengers riding in the bombers wear parachutes...and that's been going on for over 25 years.
Someone is giving them hell up in New England...
Chris...

[billbyles]

Bill,
The 262 is a new build. It has CJ-605 engines out of the Lear for power. The F-4 and A-4 have been operating for years with the blessing of the Administrator. What are a few tuna rides to defray the cost? What, really and practically, is the difference between the WWII and jet vehicles? The F-4 is twin engined and the A-4 has all manual flight controls with a little boost. Plus, as you say, the limited exposure of the minimal operations is statistically a better bet for not having an accident. The FAA is being inconsistent in my estimation. They aren't demanding all passengers riding in the bombers wear parachutes...and that's been going on for over 25 years.
Someone is giving them hell up in New England...
Chris...

Chris, there is a large difference in flying in an F-4 or A-4 and a P-51 and I am a little puzzled that you don't see the difference.  If Collings (or any other qualified organization) wants to fly the F-4 or A-4 with pilot only as an airshow display I don't see that much of a problem; however selling rides to the general public who may or may not have ever worn a parachute in an ejection seat is a whole different thing.

[Chuck Feldman]

Collings Foundation Aircraft.  I served as a local stop coordinator for the bombers for several years here in Stuart Florida. This was a good thing to do and it also afforded me the opportunity to fly on the B-17 & B-24 bombers. The flights on these aircraft are in my opinion quite safe. I recommend that everyone try to do this. But on the subject of the jet fighters, much as I would love to get a ride it doesn't seem like a prudent thing to do. Others on this page have pointed that out.

Thanks,

Chuck Feldman

[Mark Scarborough]

Just as an FYI,
Jet, and turbine engines typically have a MUCH better MTBF ( mean time between failures) ratio than piston engines. The likely hood of an experienced pilot in a jet doing something stupid with John Q public on board is pretty dang remote. Especially with the price of admission.
I have no issue whatever with these jet aircraft flying over MY house. The investment that this company has in these aircraft, monetarilly and emotionally fairly well insures that they are well maintained and inspected.
I find it rather humorous that Paul would scrape the archives to find AN incident that makes it look bad for the jets. What about all the L-29 and L-39 jets that have been imported into the states and are flying in civilian livery? In fact, I think at one point there was an organized racing event at Reno for them?
In any case, I certainly dont see any eveidence of a greater risk with these than there is with a multitude of other aircraft that fly over our cities on a regular basis which are less loved and cared for. ( think about all the rental cessnas that certainly dont get the TLC and personal attention these magnificent craft get)

[Paul Smith]

I didn't "scrape the archives" to find evidence of when a privately-owned F-86 Sabre crashed into Farrell's in Sacramento.  It was big news at the time and the subject many safety brieflings at USAF safety meetings.  Furthermore, it was a pivotal event in the FAA's ongoong (and well-justified) position toward priviately-owned jet fighters.   

When a jet fighter goes down, it goes down a lot harder that a Cessna 172 or some other general avaition thingy that can glide in to a controlled crash.

Of all the airplanes that were ever built, there is probably less than 5% that a person can buy a ride in.  I'd like to fly an F-101 Voodoo and a B-57, but it won't happen.  I didn't know so many people carved a ride in an Me-262.  Too bad.  Won't happen.

Even if that 2-seat modern copy of an Me-262 gets certified, the passengers still won't have riden in an Me-262.  It sounds like a really cool project, but not a passenger-carrier.

[billbyles]

Just as an FYI,
Jet, and turbine engines typically have a MUCH better MTBF ( mean time between failures) ratio than piston engines. The likely hood of an experienced pilot in a jet doing something stupid with John Q public on board is pretty dang remote. Especially with the price of admission.
I have no issue whatever with these jet aircraft flying over MY house. The investment that this company has in these aircraft, monetarilly and emotionally fairly well insures that they are well maintained and inspected.
I find it rather humorous that Paul would scrape the archives to find AN incident that makes it look bad for the jets. What about all the L-29 and L-39 jets that have been imported into the states and are flying in civilian livery? In fact, I think at one point there was an organized racing event at Reno for them?
In any case, I certainly dont see any eveidence of a greater risk with these than there is with a multitude of other aircraft that fly over our cities on a regular basis which are less loved and cared for. ( think about all the rental cessnas that certainly dont get the TLC and personal attention these magnificent craft get)

Just as an FYI to you, the first few airplanes that I signed off as an A&P/IA back in the late 1980s/early 1990s were Korean war era jets as well as later ones, and I well understand about the MTBF on jet engines.  I have flown the Lockheed T-33 as well as the Folland Gnat.  I am well aware of the jet races at Reno and the L-29s/L-39s flying in civilian livery.  The races at Reno are flown under very controlled conditions and the pilots have to pass stringent flight tests to be able to race at Reno.

Do you not understand the difference in performance parameters/flight characteristics/energy management requirements from a Cessna to the next higher order of magnitude such as a P-51 to the next higher order of magnitude which is the F-4 and A-4?  I would love to be able to fly in a Phantom II, but even with the flight experience that I have I would not be qualified to ride as a passenger without the extensive egress training that the military provides.  And how does the price of admission make the likelihood of a pilot "...doing something stupid with John Q public on board is pretty dang remote" valid?...non-sequitur.   

That being said, I still do not understand how you can think that selling rides to J.Q. Public in an F-4 Phantom II or an A-4 Skyhawk is no different than selling rides in a Cessna or other small piston powered, propeller driven light airplane.

[Mark Scarborough]

Bill,
Paul
I certainly see the difference, however as it is obvious by now, my opinion differs from yours with regards to the apparant safety, or lack of regarding civilinized jets.
its all fair, you are free to have your opinion, and likewise I am free to have mine.
I dont really see that this is something to defend further from my side at least.
especially since the likelyhood of me buying a ride in any of them jet or piston is pretty slim.
Not really worried about them flying over my house either. I think for the most part the gents that are flying the jets are pretty savvy dudes.

You guys keep your opinions,, I shall keep mine,
smile,
have a good day

[john e. holliday]

I say anything that will keep some of these birds flying should be gotten behind.  I see reports of famous people and some not so famous flying with the Blue Angels.  They have to go a little training before they even suit up.  If people are willing to go thru the training and the money to ride one of these planes with a qualified pilot, I say let them go.  Years ago I got to ride in the old Ford Tri-motor out of down town KCMo airport.  The old wicker seats and what was called a seat belt.  Never thought of what would happen if the engines went bonkers, which I know is very unlikely.  But, flying by qualified people is much more safer than me driving down the highway.  At least up there you don't have somebody that thinks they are driving in a Daytona race.  Last few miles was without cruise control because of the idiots that think they can do 80 in a 70 mph zone.  I say let them fly.  Having fun,  DOC Holliday

PS:Hope the guy appreciates the paint removel from his bumper.  jeh

[Allen Burnham]

Interesting post. Right off I would say let them fly. You guys need to make the money somehow. I can understand your plea for assistance, but it seems like no one is interested in helping much after reading the replies. With the cost being what some have quoted in the replies, I think you may be asking the wrong bunch of guys for help. I may be wrong but I would venture a guess that most of us would not be able to or even want to drop that kind of money for an "amusement park ride on acid" that a jet fighter would be. The kind of people who would pay that kind of money for a few minutes of pucker do it so they can tell their buddies about how they "was a fighter pilot" for a few minutes.
I applaud the folks who do the restoration and demonstrations with the old birds. I thank all of them who I have spoken with and watched fly over the years for their efforts.
I don't mean to offend anyone, just my opinion.
Al

[mike hartung]

I think the question is more about how much control we want to give over to the government with regard to what we can and can not do. I really do not want to get off topic; but how many rules and regulations do we really need. There are ten good ones that I can think of.

[FLOYD CARTER]

And to think I gave dozens of free rides in my 1938 Focke-Wulf 44 biplane.  Could have made a bundle of cash, but didn't.

Floyd

[Paul Smith]

And to think I gave dozens of free rides in my 1938 Focke-Wulf 44 biplane.  Could have made a bundle of cash, but didn't.

Floyd

If they gave away FREE rides in the ME-262, etc, they would be OK. 
The business of flying with PAYING passengers is where they run afoul of the FAA.
While I'm not a big fan of gov-a-mint regulation, somebody needs to enforce some standards of what flys over us and our houses.

[billbyles]

If they gave away FREE rides in the ME-262, etc, they would be OK. 
The business of flying with PAYING passengers is where they run afoul of the FAA.
While I'm not a big fan of gov-a-mint regulation, somebody needs to enforce some standards of what flys over us and our houses.

Hi Paul,

I’m with you about not being a fan of “gov-a-mint” regulation...as far as I’m concerned the less government the better.  Since the only pilots likely to be flying something as high-performance as a Phantom II or an A-4 Skyhawk will probably be former military pilots who flew those in the service I’m not too concerned about them flying those airplanes over my home.  I have good faith in the maintenance done by the Collings Foundation as I have some familiarity with that group.

The thing that concerns me about them selling rides to J.Q. Public is that the majority of the riders will not have any familiarity with egress systems, i.e. ejection seats (how and when to eject) and what to do if they do manage to eject successfully.  This knowledge is not something that you can impart in a 30 minute briefing.  It is easy to say "Well, there is only a very small chance of anything going wrong anyway so why get all worried about it?"  Well, when that small chance does go wrong in a jet fighter (whether it be a Lockheed T-33 jet trainer, an A-4 Skyhawk, an F-4 Phantom II, or an F-15) it goes wrong in a hurry as you know and you can't get the crib sheet out to see what to do next.

[Bob Reeves]

  Not much you can do in an ejection seat except go along for the ride, pilot will tell the passenger when to pull the curtan, other than that all he/she has to worry about is landing without breaking a leg. Whats so hard about it 

Now if they could simulate a cat launch and carrier landing that would be a ride...

[billbyles]

Not much you can do in an ejection seat except go along for the ride, pilot will tell the passenger when to pull the curtan, other than that all he/she has to worry about is landing without breaking a leg. Whats so hard about it 

Yeah, it sounds simple and the ride down after a successful egress is pretty straightforward; doing it under extreme stress/disorientation under high G-loads imparted by a spinning/departed flight aircraft and having to do it within one or two seconds (including the time wasted by "the will not to believe that this is really happening") and do it right the first time can complicate the egress scenario, especially if the passenger has no experience in a high-perf military airplane even as a passenger.  Ejections don't always happen with the airplane in a nice, upright, level flight scenario at low/medium speed with plenty of altitude.   

[Larry Fulwider]

Yeah, it sounds simple and the ride down after a successful egress is pretty straightforward; doing it under extreme stress/disorientation under high G-loads imparted by a spinning/departed flight aircraft and having to do it within one or two seconds (including the time wasted by "the will not to believe that this is really happening") and do it right the first time can complicate the egress scenario, especially if the passenger has no experience in a high-perf military airplane even as a passenger.  Ejections don't always happen with the airplane in a nice, upright, level flight scenario at low/medium speed with plenty of altitude.   

An easy way to eliminate the risk of a botched ejection is to disable the ejection system. 

   Larry Fulwider

[Matt Colan]

...or you could pony-up $20 million and go to the ISS.

$20 million?  Ha a mear bag of shells!    (that's right, I watch the Honeymooners from the 50s)

[Matt Colan]

When a jet fighter goes down, it goes down a lot harder that a Cessna 172 or some other general avaition thingy that can glide in to a controlled crash.

I jumped into this thread kind of late, and finally decided to read it.  Since i now have some vague flying experience and flying in a Cessna 172,  you would have to do something incredibly stupid to crash a Cessna 172, even flying on my simulator which is 99.9% accurate as far as I can tell it is incredibly hard to crash a Cessna as long as I knew what I was doing.  An Extra 330, which is also on that simulator, I've crashed and burned over a dozen times trying to push the evelope.

Now if they could simulate a cat launch and carrier landing that would be a ride...

Bob, you're in luck for the cat launch!!!  There is a roller coaster in New Jersey called Kingda-ka where you get launched from 0 to 110mph in 3 seconds.  The launching mechanism is actually now being used in aircraft carriers in place of steam launches.

Here is the ride!!!!!

[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HN8nv4tVFuA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HN8nv4tVFuA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

[billbyles]

An easy way to eliminate the risk of a botched ejection is to disable the ejection system.  

   Larry Fulwider

Larry, I have to think that your comment was made tongue-in-cheek.  There is no way that I would fly or ride as a passenger in a jet fighter without a hot seat.  There is absolutely no way to get out successfully without having the charges in a fully functioning seat.  You guys who think that the egress from a high-perf jet is no big deal are in a state of denial.  You must think that nothing could ever go wrong, and a huge majority of the time it doesn't; however, when it does go wrong it is a very big deal.  Yeah, sure, a ride in a Phantom II is a fantastic experience; but it is not a good idea for selling rides to the general public where the only criteria is a large wallet.

[billbyles]

I jumped into this thread kind of late, and finally decided to read it.  Since i now have some vague flying experience and flying in a Cessna 172,  you would have to do something incredibly stupid to crash a Cessna 172, even flying on my simulator which is 99.9% accurate as far as I can tell it is incredibly hard to it is incredibly hard crash a Cessna as long as I knew what I was doing.  An Extra 330, which is also on that simulator, I've crashed and burned over a dozen times trying to push the evelope.

Hi Matt,  the video is pretty cool and except for all of the structure and rails the pulling and rolling looks much like the view from my cockpit when I was flying formation aerobatic airshows from deck level.  Man, what a ride that coaster has to be!

Your statement above "...it is incredibly hard to crash a Cessna as long as I knew what I was doing" is fairly true on a comparative basis.  It is not "incredibly hard to crash any airplane" (including a C-172) if you don't adhere to the last part of your statement very carefully.  I have quite a bit of time in both the Pitts S-1s & S-2B as well as the Extra 330.  They are airplanes that have a lot control authority and have a gentle stall unless flown into an accelerated stall.  Then they get pretty quick on the wing drop.  They are very recoverable unless you aggravate the stall recovery by using excess aileron; rudder and elevator are the best way to recover from an accelerated stall in these airplanes.

The airplane in which I flew formation aerobatic airshows is an ex-military airplane with a fairly thin wing and a small radius leading edge.  In an accelerated stall this airplane would snap roll over the top with a spin following very shortly.  As long as I observed the flight envelope carefully ("know what you are doing and practice this knowledge") there was no problem.  The International Council of Air Shows (ICAS) and the FAA (yeah, I know..."gov-a-mint" again but ya gotta live with it) required that we know the corner velocity (among a lot of other information) of our airplanes.  Corner velocity is the speed that will allow the minimum radius corner, as in the need to pull to avoid the ground, should the need arise (and that speed is not the minimum speed you can fly the airplane).  All part of "knowing what you are doing", as you mentioned in your post above.  You definitely have the right idea and attitude.  

I think that your ambition to fly the full-scale stuff is very achievable; you have great enthusiasm and apparent capability.  Go for it.

[Matt Colan]

Hi Bill,

thanks for the comment, I really appreciate that!  On that simulator, there is a mission where I'm supposed to test a 747 that was brought out of storage.  I am supposed to conduct flight tests (stall tests actually), and I know enough from flying RC and CL that when an airplane stalls it needs to dive in order to gain airspeed.  In that same mission, the plane is programed to lose 3 of the 4 engines and make an emergency landing into Edwards airforce base.  I've flown that mission twice and succeded once because I landed at the wrong airport.  The simulator I'm taking about is Microsoft Flight Simulator X.

I think I'm going to be flying again on Thursday, and so far we got a good weather forecast for it. 

[Elwyn Aud]

Even if they aren't allowed to sell rides in the 262 I hope they still plan on flying it in airshows.

[billbyles]

Even if they aren't allowed to sell rides in the 262 I hope they still plan on flying it in airshows.

Me too, Elwyn!  I'd love to see it fly.  It will have more thrust and more reliability than the original engines used in the Me-262 so it should be a great performer.  Just as an aside, about a half hour ago I watched the P-38 "Glacier Girl" take off at Chino airport.  This is the P-38 that was recovered from 260 feet under a glacier in Greenland and restored by Fighter Rebuilders at Chino.  Steve Hinton flew it off to an airshow.

[Elwyn Aud]

I remember reading about the Gee Bee's around 40 years ago and thinking "It's too bad I'll never get to see one of those monsters in action" and then Delmar Benjamin comes along with his marvelous replica and wowed airshow crowds for a good many years. Looks like I might get to see another rarity in action if all goes well.  Between the two I think the Gee Bee is a bit more interesting.

[john e. holliday]

And I bet he calls that work flying the P-38. LL~DOC Holliday

[billbyles]

And I bet he calls that work flying the P-38. LL~DOC Holliday

Yeah, Doc...Steve was just slaving over a hot throttle quadrant with the other hand guiding the yoke on "Glacier Girl"; it's not easy for him, having to fly all of these WWII fighters & bombers and Oh, the work involved in having to fly the F-86, T-33, Mig-15, etc.  Poor Steve.

[john e. holliday]

I also think he get's paid well.  Probably not enough if you ask him.  DOC Holliday

[billbyles]

I also think he get's paid well.  Probably not enough if you ask him.  DOC Holliday

Well, aside from being president of Planes of Fame and getting to fly everything in the inventory, he personally owns more than one multi-million dollar WWII fighter.  His 22 year-old son Stevie, jr. works at Fighter Rebuilders with his dad and after winning the Gold at Reno flying Strega Stevie asked his Dad for a raise...denied.  So much for the benefits of nepotism.

[W.D. Roland]

Ever wonder what would happen if a Rat racer got away from the circle?
Or even a 60 powered stunter?
Who the heck do we think we are putting our own life at risk?

We need some government regulation on this.



Think I will go hide in a safe pile of pillows until Obama and friends finish making Amerika a better place.
Please shoot me when they are finished.


WHOOPS!
This is not LTUP is it?


The operating system is corrupt.
Time to reformat the government
David

[john e. holliday]

That is why a safety net is now required for racing.  Can't race the high powered stuff legally any more.  Check out the racing site at Muncie sometime.  Two circles enclosed with nets and pitting area in between.  Have fun,  DOC Holliday

[W.D. Roland]

So how do you do a pit stop from behind a net?

Just being politically silly using our hobby Doc.

Seems t be the way of modern times--silly politics that is.

[Balsa Butcher]

I really don't think enforcing control line circle safety is any higher on the Obama administration's list of priorities then it was on the Bush administration's list. Wasn't this thread originally about rides in fighter jets? If we are talking flying restrictions, we should look at our own Academy of Model Aeronautics. I suspect that the rules in many cases are dictated by the insurance companies that cover our sport but this thread isn't about that either.

[Chuck Feldman]

Glacier girl.   Was recovered and restored by a group in and from Kentucky. I do not see how the Chino group can claim they restored it? I am sure this will draw some replies. Go to Goggle and enter Glacier girl P-38 lightning it is all there.

[Matt Colan]

There was also a show on the History Channel about the restoration of Glacier Girl, and on the lost squadron.  I haven't seen it in a while, so I can't exactly remember what was in it (obviously the P-38)

[billbyles]

Glacier girl.   Was recovered and restored by a group in and from Kentucky. I do not see how the Chino group can claim they restored it? I am sure this will draw some replies. Go to Goggle and enter Glacier girl P-38 lightning it is all there.

The Chino group doesn't claim to have restored it, however they were very involved in consulting on the project and finding parts as they have considerable expertise in the restoration of a P-38.  Steve Hinton, as mentioned in the story about the restoration, did the flights from the first flight after the restoration, to the attemp to fly it to Duxford, to current operations.  I watched Glacier Girl fly just a few days ago with Steve at the controls.

All of this about Glacier Girl should probably be in another thread...

[Chuck Feldman]

Thanks Bill,

I now have the full story.  Thanks for filling it in.

Chuck

[Rod Lamer]

Larry if I can help just shoot me an e-mail and I will do what I can to support you and these ideas. I like the idea and am so sick and tired of people TOTALLY shooting down other peoples dreams and ideas like you have tried to express here. Would I be able to afford a ride in a historical aircraft...no, but I would love to. I am sure one that would like to see these special planes in the air again. I just love airshows and in my opinion there should be more historically significant planes to show what got us all where we are now- good or bad.

[john e. holliday]

So how do you do a pit stop from behind a net?

Just being politically silly using our hobby Doc.

Seems t be the way of modern times--silly politics that is.

I see it has been awhile since you have competed.  The pitting area is where we set up for the races.  Measure and pull test lines.  The place where we make pit stops is on the pitting circle.  There is a pilot circle in which the pilot must stay in it until pit stop time.  Then the pit circles, one for the pilot and then the others depending on what event is being flown.  I guess I am not clear enough at times.  I will blame it on old age.