WWII planes collide at airshow.

[3WE]

Dallas TX. B-17 and a Cobra.

70+ YO pilots?

Flyboy’s previous disdain for B-17 operations is noted.

[Not_Karl]

Video:
https://avgeekery.com/b-17-and-p-63-cra ... collision/
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/b ... as-airshow

[elaw]

[3WE]

I saw some speculation that it looked like the small plane deliberately hit the bomber.

In some ways, it was a dead-on hit from above.

Conversely, there’s also an appearance that something was broken, or pilot incapacitation…

I dunno emoji

[flyboy2548m]

Confederate Air Force strikes again! Tell me it ain't so!

[elaw]

Some insights from one of our favorite aviation speakists: https://youtu.be/C342dfNPCyg

[flyboy2548m]

I figured he wouldn't be too long...

[3WE]

I figured he wouldn't be too long...

Too long BEFORE he talked about it, or too long TALKING about it?

Future Quote=flyboy: Yes.

After a few minutes, I decided he was taking 20 min to say that visibility sucked in the Cobra.

That being said, I'd think WE would do a better job of seeing and avoiding B-17s with somewhat known whereabouts.

I also noted there that Kent states he has flown warbirds as a pilot with some age-ability compromises.

There's also mild amusement from there at the loss of the aeroplanie being worse than the loss of peoplies...(yeah, we might sometimes say that here, too).

[flyboy2548m]

There's also mild amusement from there at the loss of the aeroplanie being worse than the loss of peoplies...(yeah, we might sometimes say that here, too).

I don't disconcur with that sentiment, the number of fat-walleted geezers who want to relive their parents' war far exceeds the number of airworthy warbird airframes.

[3WE]

We have probably already seen this: https://youtu.be/rumZ1jc74f4

Not_much different than Dan Juan, but easier to stomach.

The crash seems like a painfully simple screw up.

[ocelot]

Both of the speakists talk about visibility, but there's another term for a fighter with poor cockpit visibility: "target". Maybe the P-61 is worse than average because it's supposed to be a bomber-killer, but I strongly suspect they're both overstating it.

(That said, yes, at the point of collision there's no way the B-17 was visible. Before that, not so clear. And remember that it's quite easy to not see something, or to see it but not have it register as relevant, for no reason other than you don't expect it to be there.)

[flyboy2548m]

Both of the speakists talk about visibility, but there's another term for a fighter with poor cockpit visibility: "target". Maybe the P-61 is worse than average because it's supposed to be a bomber-killer...

First of all, it was a P-63, but I'll let that slide for the moment. Second of all, show me ONE single-engine WWII fighter that had good visibility downward (which was the issue here). I'll wait.

[3WE]

***show me ONE single-engine WWII fighter that had good visibility downward***

Dang…I know cockpits kinda sat on the wings, but given formation flying and landing and dog fighting and that people want to sneak up on you and shoot you down, it’s sad to hear that downward visibility is not_good.

Do I recall from a speakist that the P-63 actually had a slightly forwardererer cockpit and thus a “better” downward view (not_inferring “good”)?

[elaw]

It had a mid-mounted engine (as in, behind the cockpit), which in theory would allow a shorter nose and improve visibility. But looking at the plane, it doesn't seem to have made much difference.

[Not_Karl]

...it's supposed to be a bomber-killer...

Well, it certainly showed itself to be one...

Second of all, show me ONE single-engine WWII fighter that had good visibility downward (which was the issue here). I'll wait.

Your wait is over.

[flyboy2548m]

It had a mid-mounted engine (as in, behind the cockpit), which in theory would allow a shorter nose and improve visibility. But looking at the plane, it doesn't seem to have made much difference.

That's not why Bell went with that configuration.

[3WE]

It had a mid-mounted engine (as in, behind the cockpit), which in theory would allow a shorter nose and improve visibility. But looking at the plane, it doesn't seem to have made much difference.

That's not why Bell went with that configuration.

I think we know that…aero engineering to have a gun fire out of the prop spinner…no need for timing, and allowed a faster fire rate, etc.

[ocelot]

First of all, it was a P-63, but I'll let that slide for the moment.

Er, right.

Second of all, show me ONE single-engine WWII fighter that had good visibility downward (which was the issue here). I'll wait.

Granted, but the real visibility question isn't "oops I'm about to land on a bomber", it's why the pilot didn't see the bomber much further back and thus ended up maneuvering into a dangerous position. It should have been visible from there; sure, it was lower but the P-63 was also descending, and the visibility somewhat lower to one side generally isn't bad.

(Also, before you wait too too long, at least one of the dive bombers that was occasionally used as a fighter had a bottom window.)

[elaw]

One aviation speakist that's well-known around these parts seems to think it's the airboss's fault: https://youtu.be/IRVqg-pCb6o

[ocelot]

On visibility, I found this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F54jcEFECck

which suggests that as I expected the visibility other than straight down and straight-ahead-and-down is pretty good.

(Tangential question: how the hell do you taxi safely in a big-engine taildragger where you can't see jack out the front when it's on the ground?)

[3WE]

I did something very stupid and procedurally violating several yeas ago. The short version is that a single car stayed right behind my right window post. Fortunately only some grass blades did died, and sheet metal was not_adjusted….

So, in spite of what any of us feel about fighter visibility, there are blind spots and some Swiss cheese (and blind spots) would seem to have alingnded. Unfortunate, but not_the first time.

As stated repeatedly, more regulation, oversight, procedures, training and public punishment is needed.

[flyboy2548m]

(Tangential question: how the hell do you taxi safely in a big-engine taildragger where you can't see jack out the front when it's on the ground?)

S-turns.

[ocelot]

I did something very stupid and procedurally violating several yeas ago. The short version is that a single car stayed right behind my right window post. Fortunately only some grass blades did died, and sheet metal was not_adjusted….

Sure, that can happen. You're not supposed to let it happen with traffic you know is there. Or that you're supposed to know is there. Anyway, my guess would be that the P-63 pilot failed to connect the positioning instructions to "we are crossing through the bomber line with no altitude separation", not least because you don't do that sort of thing, and consequently wasn't looking.

It's quite easy to "see" things in front of you that you weren't looking for and not have them actually register. Have bent grass doing that.