Sixxkiller Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 A P-51 Mustang went down and as of right now 12 people died including the pilot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Video here if you haven't seen it yet 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LemoN Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Holy cow, those poor sods! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Kind of funny when you read the news and then Wikipedia. The National Championship Air Races have been deadly before. Two pilots died at the event in 1994. And organisers softened two of the curves pilots negotiate after two more pilots crashed into nearby neighborhoods in 1998 and 1999. In 2007 and 2008, four pilots were killed at the races, prompting local school officials to consider barring student field trips to the event. Deaths before 2011 From 1964 through 2010, 19 aviators lost their lives due to crashes and collisions in the course of the competition and airshow.[1] In 2007, three pilots died over the course of four days in separate incidents. (Gary Hubler, Steve Dari, & Brad Morehouse).[2] Racing was suspended for one day after the last of the three incidents.[3][4] [edit] 2011 crash Main article: 2011 Reno Air Races crash On September 16, 2011, a P-51D Mustang named "The Galloping Ghost", piloted by Jimmy Leeward, crashed near the stands during the Gold Heat of the race, killing Leeward and 10 spectators and injuring 69.[5][6][7] Race organizers cancelled all remaining 2011 races after the accident.[8] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Kind of funny when you read the news and then Wikipedia. Not to diminish the tragedy of the event but on the same day 125 people died and 6500 were injured driving on the roads, always gets me how we simply accept everyday deaths but get all concerned about comparatively rare occurrences. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 It was a sad, sad day, all right. I saw the video above - I can't imagine what it must have been like to have been there, let alone see your friends or family hurt or worse. One of these days the number of available WW2 war birds for these rich playboys to soup up will be zip and this particular racing event will be history. Of course, there will be other types to race but it won't be the same. Enjoy (?!) it while it lasts. I wouldn't mind going once myself, though I much prefer seeing the stock birds fly when I can. Attending any high-performance racing is a bit risky but that's what some people crave. My wife wouldn't go to the Reno air races if you paid her to, but she'll happily go to a non-racing air show. I'm hoping we can find time to go to the Miramar air show this year. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 One of these days the number of available WW2 war birds for these rich playboys ... As great as they are, I think it's a bit of a stretch to call anything seen at Reno a WWII warbird. I'd be surprised if as much as 5% of the components were over 60 years old. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Attending any high-performance racing is a bit risky but that's what some people crave. But that is my point, you are at far greater risk driving there than being there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Following the 1952 crash of a De Havilland 110 at Farnborough airshow that killed 29 spectators and the two aircrew, regulations changed governing air displays. From then on, no aircraft was allowed to turn towards a crowd unless it was over 3 miles away. (Empire of the Clouds, pg. 37 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Empire-Clouds-Britains-Aircraft-Ruled/dp/0571247946) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Farnborough_Airshow_DH.110_crash http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/6/newsid_2981000/2981786.stm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 As great as they are, I think it's a bit of a stretch to call anything seen at Reno a WWII warbird. I'd be surprised if as much as 5% of the components were over 60 years old. I think your percentages are off - more like 30-60% of the original remains, depending if you are looking at airframe or other components. But what is important is that they started out as original war birds and when the originals are gone, they're gone. No one has yet entered a "replica" warbird into the races to fly next to the real thing in the Unlimited category. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 What I wonder is why no one has come along with an all-new from the ground up purpose-built unlimited racer, since the warbirds are so heavily modified anyway. Between the wars, the races were the laboratories of innovative design work in high performance aeronautics. Although improvements in subsonic aerodynamics may be minor by now, there are new materials and avionic technologies available. And what about newer power plants? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gautrek Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 (Empire of the Clouds, pg. 37 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Empire-Clouds-Britains-Aircraft-Ruled/dp/0571247946) What a brilliant book this is mate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 And what about newer power plants? Are there many manufacturers building 4000+HP internal combustion aero engines these days? But, actually, there is plenty of innovation at Reno. There are various classes in addition to the Unlimiteds. But ... i remember reading a quite somewhere about the lesser classes there in some aero mag, back in the day. It went something like "On day two there's the finals of the Limited Class. These aircraft are amazing - they get two thirds of the top speeds of the old warbirds from less than a fifth of the horsepower. But, of course, no one really cares about that. Everyone is here to watch the balls out jousting of the iron unlimiteds." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 But, actually, there is plenty of innovation at Reno. There are various classes in addition to the Unlimiteds. Which is what led me to wonder why there is relatively so little in the unlimited class. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Are there many manufacturers building 4000+HP internal combustion aero engines these days? How about turboprops? Would those be a practical alternative for racing? Granted, they wouldn't sound as fierce... Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 How about turboprops? Would those be a practical alternative for racing? Granted, they wouldn't sound as fierce... Michael Could you put a turbo prop in the nose of an a/c? I have no idea. Also, AIUI a turbo prop isn't really internal combustion. Then agains, I don't know what the rules for the class are. It's called 'Unlimited', but presumably there're some limitations, otherwise there'd be jets an' 'fings. There's a bare set of classes and requirements here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_Air_Races 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Which is what led me to wonder why there is relatively so little in the unlimited class. The Rare Bear web page hints that there actually is quite a lot of development done on these a/c. But I see your point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 From http://aafo.com/racing/classes.htm Even though this racing class is called "unlimited" there are certain restrictions placed upon all entries. All aircraft must have piston engines, be propeller driven, and capable of pulling 6 G’s. Besides that, this class is basically a "no-holds-barred" affair operating within these few requirements. Anything goes! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Could you put a turbo prop in the nose of an a/c? I have no idea. Also, AIUI a turbo prop isn't really internal combustion. Then agains, I don't know what the rules for the class are. It's called 'Unlimited', but presumably there're some limitations, otherwise there'd be jets an' 'fings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalier_Mustang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-48_Enforcer Yep sure can, but like you say a Turbo prop is certainly not an internal combustion engine. Thing with most turboprop aircraft is that they are not really about speed but more so torque. A lot of STOL and crop dusters use them so they can haul themselves into the air with comparatively low airspeed. Having said that the fastest prop aircraft is a Turboprop but it isn't all that much faster than the "Rare Bear". I think the big limiter with prop aircraft is not so much horsepower but more the limits of the propeller itself. I'd be interested to see how a highly manoeuvrable jet, F16 for example, would go at Reno, I'd be thinking their rate of turn would be great but the radius of turn would be huge so the ol' props could out turn them? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 ...a Turbo prop is certainly not an internal combustion engine. It sure as hell is. Do you think it is an external combustion engine??? But it is not a piston engine, and if the rules specify that... I think the big limiter with prop aircraft is not so much horsepower but more the limits of the propeller itself. That's true. High subsonic speeds are possible however. The Tu-95MS has a maximum speed of 575 mph. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 It sure as hell is. Do you think it is an external combustion engine??? But it is not a piston engine, and if the rules specify that... oops I was thinking internal combustion was how you indicate that the combustion takes place inside a sealed space within the engine. That's true. High subsonic speeds are possible however. The Tu-95MS has a maximum speed of 575 mph. Which really is not all that much faster than the top pistons, Rare Bear is at 530 odd mph. Smaller single engine Turboporps seem to not be able to reach such high speeds, The PC-9 of the RAAF, USAF, USN, and the Tucano of the RAF only have speds in the low to mid 300mph range. Not sure if that is because they aren't designed to or if there is some limiting factor. According to Reno rules the "unlimited" class must be a prop, piston engine, be able to pull 6G and weigh more than 4500lbs. I see they have a jet class now but maybe the main reason there are no Turboprops is because they don't have a class to race in? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.