DC-4 flybye with starboard propellors feathered

[MUSKEG]

I once had an owner insist that all pilots given adequate training could all fly the same trip. I disagree with that thinking because if that is so then his proctologist could have preformed brain surgury. That is why some Doctors only make good GP's and others nuro surgeons. They are still Doctors, but with different abilities which are limited by capability. No different in aviation. Lets not forget that in the video being shredded camera's do not give good depth perception so unless someone knows exactly how close he was vs how close it looked, it's a moot point. Some here are holding Bob Hoover in high esteem because his 2 engine out loops were low risk HUH. High risk coupled with high ability might be the same as low risk coupled with low ability. Just because it scares you doesn't necessarily mean it's scarry.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Bob Hoover used energy conservation from the top of his display to the bottom of the display at which point the airplane was on the ground parked in front of the spectators.

He had it down to a science and the risk factor was low...especially the risk of losing an engine during the routine as both were feathered.

[MUSKEG]

The level of risk does not diminish with the level of skill. Risk is risk. Hoover was able to manage his to a degree that was in his mind acceptable. We know nothing of the level of skill of the DC-4 crew so just maybe they had worked at this manuever starting at altitude and worked out the risk to an acceptable level and performed it. That was not a one time act. Camera's do not give a true indication of, altitude,speed, andle of bank, etc.etc. We do not know his A/S so we don't know if it was low energy. That was a highly thought out manuever. Good hands and feet, the rest is speculation.

[CID]

Do those guys work for a smoking-hole delivery service?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The level of risk does not diminish with the level of skill. Risk is risk.

So having to train for and perform to a standard during flight tests for our airdisplay authorities did not diminish the risk factor?

If skill level has no bearing on risk then why do we have to pass ongoing skills tests to perform in airshows?

[straightpilot]

Do those guys work for a smoking-hole delivery service?

No, but unlike you they are qualified pilots.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The level of risk does not diminish with the level of skill. Risk is risk. Hoover was able to manage his to a degree that was in his mind acceptable. We know nothing of the level of skill of the DC-4 crew so just maybe they had worked at this manuever starting at altitude and worked out the risk to an acceptable level and performed it. That was not a one time act. Camera's do not give a true indication of, altitude,speed, andle of bank, etc.etc. We do not know his A/S so we don't know if it was low energy. That was a highly thought out manuever. Good hands and feet, the rest is speculation.

In low level work energy is life. Bob Hoover very carefully manages the aircraft energy so that at every point of his display he has enough energy to maintain control and make a safe landing. A DC 4 with 2 engines out will not maintain level flight with two engines out and the gear down. Therefore if after his hero pass there is a problem raising the gear or starting the engines he is done. If one of the operating engines so much as sneezes, he is done, if there is a prop overspeed or the prop hangs up on the simultaneous start up, he is done. Sure the chances are low any of those bad things will happen but they are not zero. There is nothing that can happen to Bob Hoovers's aircraft that will result in an unrecoverable situation because he has planned for every eventuality. This is why he is pushing 80 yrs old and still alive. I don't think the DC 4 driver is going to die in his sleep.

I like to see examples of impressive aircraft handling skills as much as the next guy, it is just that after a lot of years in the flying business I have seen too many examples of pilots who thought that their skills allowed them to push the airplane to the edge of the envelope. Sadly they were often right for many years until one day they were not.........

[Chuck Ellsworth]

We think more alike than differently B.P.F.

That display would never have been allowed in an air show in Europe.

Bob was well into his eighties when he was flying his air displays and he was my benchmark for flying perfection....

[MUSKEG]

. I don't think I explained myself very well. Let me try again. Risk in itself is stationary. How WE prepare for it moves it around in the spectrum of acceptable and unacceptable. ie. A short 700 ft strip carries a level of risk. This risk is a constant, however how we train to land there reduces the level of risk to us. Likewise capability will also greatly effect how this risk level is handled or not.
BPF. I agree with you that Bob prepared for every situation that he could control. But put a big air pocket or freak tail wind in that nobody knew was there or expected to be there and suddenly what he does does have a risk factor. I'm just confused by some who say that Hoover was so gifted and brilliant that he worked out ALL the risk in his routine. Not possible, to an exceptable level yes, gone,no.

[Big Pistons Forever]

. I don't think I explained myself very well. Let me try again. Risk in itself is stationary. How WE prepare for it moves it around in the spectrum of acceptable and unacceptable. ie. A short 700 ft strip carries a level of risk. This risk is a constant, however how we train to land there reduces the level of risk to us. Likewise capability will also greatly effect how this risk level is handled or not.
BPF. I agree with you that Bob prepared for every situation that he could control. But put a big air pocket or freak tail wind in that nobody knew was there or expected to be there and suddenly what he does does have a risk factor. I'm just confused by some who say that Hoover was so gifted and brilliant that he worked out ALL the risk in his routine. Not possible, to an exceptable level yes, gone,no.

Bob Hoover once had a double engine failure at the beginning of his routine. The fact that he recovered the aircraft without risking the crowd or hurting himself shows how he had a plan for even the most unlikely events like a double engine failure, and that is an example of the kind of risk management which seems largely absent from the DC 4 routine. You have to take some level of risk every time you go flying, what you don't have to do is take unnecessary risks.

So Yah I agree, celebrate great flying but I don't think we should celebrate taking unnecessary risks.

[coreydotcom]

Quoting He-who-shall-not-be-named: "Bottom line: don't confuse what an airplane is capable of, with what any random pilot is capable of. Precious few pilots are capable of making an aircraft do everything it can do, without breaking it or stalling it. Your name probably isn't Bob Hoover."

This discussion reminds me a lot of that who thread on the Turnback he started before he got banned : viewtopic.php?f=3&t=70785&hilit=the+turnaround

I guess there is much more of a risk factor having the starboard props feathered, gear down, and there being a crowd than doing a "simple" turnback in a 172?

[Old Dog Flying]

I clearly recall a certain crew in a Lancaster that did passes down the show line..and on each pass they feathered another prop making their final pass on No.1. Each pass was with plenty of speed and no silly bugger aeros. This act was followed by a Spartan Airways P-38 photo bird doing a pass with both feathered..again without the wow factor.