Dallas Executive Mid-Air / B-17 - P-63

.
SteveC said:
Interesting, and sounds plausible to my inexperienced ears. I appreciate his attitude and delivery.
Click to expand...

SeanD said:
This is a good explanation. Not the best visibility from the P-63 cockpit at all. Formation flying in that thing has to be extremely challenging.
Click to expand...

The Simulator jockey in the video there doesn’t understand formation dynamics, and that is obvious through what he is saying. “…if the P-63 kept his turn in at that speed, he would rapidly catch up to the P-51s.” Wrong. At the speed the P-63 is moving, being much more than what the P-51s are moving, the P-63 will have a larger turn circle than the P-51s, and would end up not catching up to the P-51s, but rather ending up outside of them and outside of the fighter trail formation. Without pulling more Gs than the P-63 or the pilot can likely take, he’s not going to tighten that turn circle at all at his excessive speed; his turn rate will be low and his turn radius will be high. He will remain in lag pursuit and stripped from the formation he’s trying to catch up to. He either has to slow down, or maneuver up into the vertical to some degree, in order to tighten his own turn circle to match that of the P-51s and bleed off some of this speed. He failed to do that, likely because he doesn’t have the training to understand dynamic closure and angles control in relation to another aircraft.

This idea that the B-17 was somewhat out of position. Regardless of where the B-17 is, its a non maneuvering, stable platform just chugging along. The P-63 is the dynamically maneuvering aircraft, and as it is approaching from the blind spot of the B-17, has all responsibility for collision avoidance and clearance of its own flight path. Ie- responsibility to not hit chit that is in its flight path. Formation responsibilities 101 there.

The P-63 wouldn’t be a difficult airplane at all to fly formation in. Fixed wing aircraft fly formation stacked low for the successive wingmen (whereas helicopters stack high). By stacking low, the aircraft you are maneuvering in relation to is always in your best field of view: slightly above and forward of your 3-9 line, as it comes to basic maneuvering. The P-63 has more than adequate visibility to accomplish that. ANY airplane where you place the aircraft you are maneuvering in relation to, in a position underneath you, will have the serious difficulties in maintaining a visual. Hence why you don’t place aircraft there and you maneuver your own aircraft to ensure other aircraft don’t end up in those blind spots.

So, “good explanation”……this is anything but that in a few major areas due to lack of formation understanding. Guess he doesn’t fly much form work in the simulator.
 
Speaking of all this formation stuff, which I know nothing about, I'm on a contract pilot facebook page and there was a post yesterday for a company looking for Lear 31 pilots to do "formation training" on the east coast. Wonder if some people quit? That would be some pretty fun flying but scary at the same time. I'm assuming it's contract training for the military (didn't say).
 
thevideographer said:
P-63 looks like it has pretty excellent cockpit visibility to me. Search results prior to this crash mostly talk about how good the visibility was on the P-39/P-63. I think someone just declared it has bad visibility and now everyone is repeating it because it's a plausible-sounding explanation that takes the edge off of the fact that the pilot obviously just messed up.
Click to expand...

No airplane, Cub or Concorde, has good visibility at 12 low.

This is why (like this crash) virtually all midair collisions are the result faster aircraft overtaking and hitting slower aircraft from behind.
 
MikeD said:
.




The Simulator jockey in the video there doesn’t understand formation dynamics, and that is obvious through what he is saying. “…if the P-63 kept his turn in at that speed, he would rapidly catch up to the P-51s.” Wrong. At the speed the P-63 is moving, being much more than what the P-51s are moving, the P-63 will have a larger turn circle than the P-51s, and would end up not catching up to the P-51s, but rather ending up outside of them and outside of the fighter trail formation. Without pulling more Gs than the P-63 or the pilot can likely take, he’s not going to tighten that turn circle at all at his excessive speed; his turn rate will be low and his turn radius will be high. He will remain in lag pursuit and stripped from the formation he’s trying to catch up to. He either has to slow down, or maneuver up into the vertical to some degree, in order to tighten his own turn circle to match that of the P-51s and bleed off some of this speed. He failed to do that, likely because he doesn’t have the training to understand dynamic closure and angles control in relation to another aircraft.

This idea that the B-17 was somewhat out of position. Regardless of where the B-17 is, its a non maneuvering, stable platform just chugging along. The P-63 is the dynamically maneuvering aircraft, and as it is approaching from the blind spot of the B-17, has all responsibility for collision avoidance and clearance of its own flight path. Ie- responsibility to not hit chit that is in its flight path. Formation responsibilities 101 there.

The P-63 wouldn’t be a difficult airplane at all to fly formation in. Fixed wing aircraft fly formation stacked low for the successive wingmen (whereas helicopters stack high). By stacking low, the aircraft you are maneuvering in relation to is always in your best field of view: slightly above and forward of your 3-9 line, as it comes to basic maneuvering. The P-63 has more than adequate visibility to accomplish that. ANY airplane where you place the aircraft you are maneuvering in relation to, in a position underneath you, will have the serious difficulties in maintaining a visual. Hence why you don’t place aircraft there and you maneuver your own aircraft to ensure other aircraft don’t end up in those blind spots.

So, “good explanation”……this is anything but that in a few major areas due to lack of formation understanding. Guess he doesn’t fly much form work in the simulator.
Click to expand...

but this guy is a YouTube influencer….. why are you deconstructing his or her analysis?
 
thevideographer said:
P-63 looks like it has pretty excellent cockpit visibility to me. Search results prior to this crash mostly talk about how good the visibility was on the P-39/P-63. I think someone just declared it has bad visibility and now everyone is repeating it because it's a plausible-sounding explanation that takes the edge off of the fact that the pilot obviously just messed up.
Click to expand...

In the cockpit tour video posted somewhere above the guy points out why the visibility is so bad - particularly because of a lot of framing parts that block sightlines in the cockpit.
 
Murdoughnut said:
In the cockpit tour video posted somewhere above the guy points out why the visibility is so bad - particularly because of a lot of framing parts that block sightlines in the cockpit.
Click to expand...

There are some visibility limitations indeed on the P-39/63 series, but not limitations so numerous that they can’t be worked around. Placing the aircraft you are maneuvering in relation to, in areas of the canopy where there is good/better visibility, is one of the formation responsibilities. F-117 was a plane where forward visibility generally sucked, as there seemed to be more frame than glass on the forward windscreen. :)
 
MikeD said:
.




The Simulator jockey in the video there doesn’t understand formation dynamics, and that is obvious through what he is saying. “…if the P-63 kept his turn in at that speed, he would rapidly catch up to the P-51s.” Wrong. At the speed the P-63 is moving, being much more than what the P-51s are moving, the P-63 will have a larger turn circle than the P-51s, and would end up not catching up to the P-51s, but rather ending up outside of them and outside of the fighter trail formation. Without pulling more Gs than the P-63 or the pilot can likely take, he’s not going to tighten that turn circle at all at his excessive speed; his turn rate will be low and his turn radius will be high. He will remain in lag pursuit and stripped from the formation he’s trying to catch up to. He either has to slow down, or maneuver up into the vertical to some degree, in order to tighten his own turn circle to match that of the P-51s and bleed off some of this speed. He failed to do that, likely because he doesn’t have the training to understand dynamic closure and angles control in relation to another aircraft.

This idea that the B-17 was somewhat out of position. Regardless of where the B-17 is, its a non maneuvering, stable platform just chugging along. The P-63 is the dynamically maneuvering aircraft, and as it is approaching from the blind spot of the B-17, has all responsibility for collision avoidance and clearance of its own flight path. Ie- responsibility to not hit chit that is in its flight path. Formation responsibilities 101 there.

The P-63 wouldn’t be a difficult airplane at all to fly formation in. Fixed wing aircraft fly formation stacked low for the successive wingmen (whereas helicopters stack high). By stacking low, the aircraft you are maneuvering in relation to is always in your best field of view: slightly above and forward of your 3-9 line, as it comes to basic maneuvering. The P-63 has more than adequate visibility to accomplish that. ANY airplane where you place the aircraft you are maneuvering in relation to, in a position underneath you, will have the serious difficulties in maintaining a visual. Hence why you don’t place aircraft there and you maneuver your own aircraft to ensure other aircraft don’t end up in those blind spots.

So, “good explanation”……this is anything but that in a few major areas due to lack of formation understanding. Guess he doesn’t fly much form work in the simulator.
Click to expand...
MikeD said:
Worse, why are people on here buying it. :) :)

These are the modern day sim jockeys who think they know alot about whatever sim subject. :)
Click to expand...
I stand corrected.
 
MikeD said:
Worse, why are people on here buying it. :) :)

These are the modern day sim jockeys who think they know alot about whatever sim subject. :)
Click to expand...
I love Ward Carroll’s channel but I did cringe a little when he started using flight sim in his video.
 
SlumTodd_Millionaire said:
Go back and read my post. I wasn’t arguing against anything that can cause accidental death. Because literally anything can cause accidental death. I was arguing against things that have no productive purpose and have relatively high risk of accidental death. Driving is necessary to earn a living, to get food and clothing at the store, etc.
Click to expand...
Doing adventurous things that can bring potential self harm serve plenty of productive purpose. There is more to life than a means of production comrade. Also, depending on where one lives driving is not necessary to get on with life and I'd argue shouldn't be as we need to re-tool our reliance on the automobile.

I don’t know many people who go driving around in circles just for fun.
Click to expand...
You're kidding right?

But to be clear, I am an advocate for mandating autopilots as soon as the technology is out of beta. Apes are terrible drivers.
Click to expand...
I'm with you here along with geo-fencing speeds within city limits where AP can't always be used yet.

You’re thinking of someone else. I’m a lifetime member of the NRA.
Click to expand...
Still a terrible organization.
 
I appreciate that the guy was truthful and laid out who he was and his background in the opening to his video, and I don’t think he’s deliberately trying to mislead anyone and genuinely wants to know what happened. However this seems to be a case of he simply doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and doesn’t have experience with, and hence his logic stems from invalid baselines. Thus, his contentions don’t make any sense when someone who does know what is what, hears them.
 
Derg said:
You should start a YouTube channel, Daftarian!
Click to expand...

But he actually knows what he's talking about on this stuff, so he's automatically disqualified from being a YouTube "expert." :)

bike21 said:
Doing adventurous things that can bring potential self harm serve plenty of productive purpose. There is more to life than a means of production comrade. Also, depending on where one lives driving is not necessary to get on with life and I'd argue shouldn't be as we need to re-tool our reliance on the automobile.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we simply disagree on all of this. High risk endeavors for no practical purpose when you have family that relies upon you is just selfish and irresponsible in my view, and I doubt you can convince me otherwise. As far as reducing our reliance on cars, as someone who lives an hour from the center of a major city, I always find that argument hilarious. America ain't Paris.

You're kidding right?
Click to expand...

Definitely not, but if you're one of the very few people engaging in highly risky driving for fun, then my original point above stands: you should stop if you have people who count on you.

Still a terrible organization.
Click to expand...

On many points, I'd agree. But it's the only real game in town defending my rights, so I support them.
 
Boris Badenov said:
With the proviso that I've always found T-6s dressed up as Japanese aircraft kind of lame,
Click to expand...

We don't do that at Chino, we have a real Zero, it was captured during WWII when an airfield was overrun. Last I heard, it's the only real zero flying in the world.

1668489379417.jpeg


1668490498891.png


1668490515030.png


Mitsubishi A6M5 'Zeke' | Planes of Fame Air Museum

View our aircraft collection and information about each aircraft.
planesoffame.org planesoffame.org
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top