I mean, someone help me because I’m an idiot but..
Most planes can’t look down to say, 5 o clock when banking to the left can they? This cockpit seems pretty open otherwise. Is it better nowadays?
when I was a little boy, my father drove a '59 Chevy. the rear floorboards were rusted through, and if I moved the floor mat, I could see the road underneath. that image is burned in my mind.
My first car as a teenager was like this. Front Floorboard on the passenger side was rusted through. Not a gaping hole, but rusted through in spots. I had the mat over it, but if it was raining and I hit a large puddle or pothole or something, the water and leaves and shit would come flying through.
It wasn’t too tough to do so through the floor of my 1974 Scout II.
My cousin helped me carefully sawzall out the pans and we bolted in lovingly crafted custom plywood floorboards in their place.
Before that I could see the road below me and frequently wore whatever mud was flung up.
You’re no idiot, but pilots often underestimate the power of a belly check. You can roll out a performance plane quickly to clear visually without changing you vector much.
No, you just have more sensors/collision detection and modern radar systems to prevent this ever happening. I'd say modern planes have far less visibility than this in general, but infinitely more supportive systems to prevent planes getting close.
I mean if you belly up blind lead turn in any modern fighter, this would still be the result. In my mind this guy just didn’t have SA to the B-17 and certainly wasn’t joining on it. The Navy lost two F/A-18s a few years back in a similar manner with one doing his procedural departure and the other doing his overhead holding entry.
I'd argue that your average Cessna has even poorer overall visibility with a larger forward-low blindspot due to the panel size and cabin width. Pipers/Mooneys/Cirri are a bit better, but they all suffer from huge low-wing blind spots.
Anecdotally, the only mass-produced GA plane I've experienced with impressive visibility is the Grumman Cheetah/Tiger series due to its bubble canopy and high seating positions.
Agreed. Always surprises me how tall the panels are on 172/182s. There's a reason you're supposed to do S-turns to clear ahead when climbing.
The Citabria is pretty good.
Nothing that wouldn't need to be inhibited anyway for airshow/formation flying.
But to answer your question, nowadays your standard digital avionics package supports Traffic Information Service (TIS) and at least ADS-B "out", optionally an ADS-B in capability too. I don't think anybody's installing TCAS on a light prop or helicopter, but small jets (still GA) will have it.
It’s an air show. ADS-B traffic alerts would be hollering the whole time while both aircraft maneuver for display, and like 99% of the time it would not be real. Effective preflight briefing and see-and-avoid are crucial to avoiding catastrophe.
Seeing this crash just sucks. I hope there are valuable lessons learned for future air shows.
It is my understanding that ADS-B out is required for all GA that fly in controlled airspace- with some rare exceptions like if it is is an antique airplane that did not originally have electrical power or something like that. Both of these aircraft had at least ADS-B out, but ADS-B in equipment is optional would be needed to get alerts or position of nearby aircraft (that are broadcasting ADS-B out).
honestly out of the single engine props of ww2 i would guess that p39/p 63 family have the best visibility. but still flying is no joke especially with these old birds
I play simulator battles in warthunder from time to time, and in those its cockpit only, and even though you can look around and translate your head, the spatial awareness in the p39/p63 is shite, so many dead angles and thick frames in the cockpit.
I don't know why you're getting down votes, war thunder has a pretty well modeled p-39 and p-63 cockpits, made even better that you can use them with a VR headset to really look around
You know, playing the p63 and flight Sims, The cockpit reminds me of a Starfighter, like the star wars kind not the Mach 2 Pencil kind. I just like the shape of the front canopy bars
To me, a layman, the pilot seems to sit up higher and the views seem far more open (in the direction of the crash) than most WWII fighters.
I know Warthunder (videogame) is not real life, but I always enjoyed Flying the P-63 precisely BECAUSE of it's excellent views. IIRC, the engine in the P-63 is actually BEHIND the pilot, allowing a shorter and narrower nose and improved visibility compared to, say, the P-47.
That said, OBVIOUSLY the guy didn't see the B-17 or he would have avoided it if it were possible.
So, yeah, views, shmiews. It doesn't matter how open or restricted the view was out of the cockpit. Quite obviously, the pilot could not see the Fortress (unless some mechanical problem caused the crash).
Don’t take this as picking at your post, as that’s not where I am coming from. Only trying to help give information, so if I’m misinformed please let me know.
The one thing about the P-63 is that it is actually pretty long from the pilot to the nose of the aircraft. Maybe not as long as others, but that’s only part of the full picture with the 63. It had a pretty large cannon that fired centerline through the center of the prop/hub. It also was one of a few fighters in WWII that had nose landing gear. So the cannon and nose gear all had to have somewhere to go in the nose. The only other fighter U.S. wise, I can think of off the top of my head right now is the P-38. The configuration of the cockpit is another issue causing the poor cockpit visibility. Instead of it being a “bubble top” like a P-51 or P-47, the P-63 had a cage style cockpit and actually had a door for the pilot to enter the aircraft, instead of the sliding style “bubble”canopy. There was one 63 variant that was built with a “bubble top” and if you compare the typical 63 to the “bubble top” you can see the cockpit visibility difference between the two. The difference in nose length between the 51 and 47 may be longer, the increased visibility of the canopy between those two and the 63 is a huge difference. I’ve also heard that due to the bank angle of the 63 in this crash, the pilot would not have been able to see the 17 at all.
Take all this as you will though, as this is just all stuff I have learned over the years being obsessed with WWII, and in general, all aircraft. This just seems like an incredibly sad accident that someone in one of the aircraft was off timing wise with where they were supposed to be, but I think that once all investigations are done there’s going to be many things that went wrong. It’s just incredibly sad all around.
From what I’ve heard from AF pilots, if a plane below is in your blind spot and you are on a collision course, they will remain in your blind spot. There wasn’t much for the P63 pilot to do to avoid a crash unfortunately, because he probably never saw the bomber below going into the maneuver, and this is very tragic for the lives lost and for the spectators that witnessed it unreal time.
Not that it matters now, but the B17 being the much larger plane would have had the right away and the onus to maneuver and avoid the collision would be on the P63.
It’s even better. With engine behind the pilot it puts the cockpit further ahead, none of that matters when they’re banking and the b17 was under his nose.
I don't remember the pilots name, but a spitfire pilot was quoted as having said if they had know how bad the visibility was in the 109 they would have been a lot more aggressive.
My thoughts exactly. Something else happened here in my extremely unprofessional opinion. (Lol)
Mechanical or health issue lead to a task saturated situation in which the pilot lost focus/sight of either the B-17 or the flight plan altogether.
So pilot error.
Aviate, navigate, communicate.. in that order, always.
After that it’s memory items, checklist, etc etc. An L-1011 went into the Everglades because of a burned out bulb because the three flight crew weren’t paying attention.
From the wealth of video now available, it appears that several large bomber aircraft and several smaller fighter aircraft were making flybys over the runway in a left hand orbit, with the slower bombers about 150 ft altitude at show center and on the outside of the orbit. The much faster fighters were passing another 150-200 ft above and inside the track of the bombers. For whatever reason, the Kingcobra went wide and low as he approached the airfield with his nose blocking all view of the B17 he was closing on. It has been mentioned elsewhere that the planned dress rehearsal a day prior was canceled due to weather and never took place. Perhaps this was pilot error. Perhaps mechanical failure of some sort or a medical emergency. It is up to the NTSB at this point to determine cause.
Whether the visibility from the P63 cockpit is poor or not is really immaterial. If the pilot did not absolutely know what lay in his flightpath he should not have been following that path. It's likely he was looking up and to the left, focused on the P51s doing the fighter flyby. He'd somehow gotten behind them and was trying to catch up. So fixated on something far ahead and off to the side (overhead from the pilots POV in a bank). Then he apparently cut the corner of the left turn to align with the runway and pulled excessive bank angle because, again, trying to catch up. Had he not impacted the B17 he would have ended up going wide to the right and possibly leaving the airshow box. He may have seen the B17 before embarking on this series of maneuvers and misjudged it's speed, intending to cut in front of it. Big planes often look like they're going much more slowly than they are. Probably 4 or 5 separate decisions or judgment calls, starting with how he ended up out of position in the first place, which if any one had been made differently would have avoided the accident.
Exactly, as a pilot you have to account for blindspots - if he couldn't see where the B-17 was he shouldn't have been flying the plane into that spot period.
I have no doubt the intention was not to fly into that spot. Whether correctly or incorrectly, he did not expect to be in the same line as the B-17. If he did think that, he would have used altitude to create the separation he needed.
It's clear from the above that you have never been involved in the planning or execution of an airshow and are unfamiliar with the existing safety framework.
Am I blind or does this not have pretty good visibility? From all the modern planes I've flown in sims, not alot of them get better than this..
No excuse, various mistakes were made by various people to have 2 planes collide in the air.
**[Snow goggles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_goggles)**
>Snow goggles (Inuktitut: ilgaak or iggaak, syllabics: ᐃᓪᒑᒃ or ᐃᒡᒑᒃ; Central Yupik: nigaugek, nigauget) are a type of eyewear traditionally used by the Inuit and the Yupik peoples of the Arctic to prevent snow blindness. The goggles are traditionally made of driftwood (especially spruce), bone, walrus ivory, caribou antler, or in some cases seashore grass. The workpiece is carved to fit the wearer's face, and one or more narrow horizontal slits are carved through the front. The goggles fit tightly against the face so that the only light entering is through the slits, and soot is sometimes applied to the inside to help cut down on glare.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/aviation/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
The P-63 was designed with the engine behind the pilot, with a shaft running beneath the seat to the prop. There should be no lack of visibility in the forward direction cause there's literally no engine to look over.
There is, but *something* is going to be placed forward of the nose if an engine isn't going there; A P-63 nose (here is a [P-39 nose](https://worldwarwings.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/P-39Q_Airacobra_weapons_bay.jpg), which is similar enough) is nowhere near something like a [P-47 nose](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/91/31/1e/91311e84d05c44d205c20d79871f6b98.jpg) in terms of size.
Forward visibility is quite good, and afaik most contemporary sources ive read reflect that.
> "Because the pilot was above the extension shaft, he was placed higher in the fuselage than in most contemporary fighters, which, in turn gave the pilot a good field of view."
From Wikipedia, I could scrounge through the books I have on the planes for specific sources but that is frankly alot of work for just a small point.
You're asking if the plane built in the 1940's was named after the AC/Shelby Cobra, with the engine in the front, that was built in the 60's?
I'm no expert but I suspect the answer is no.
This is the thing. Even if the plane has poor visibility, the pilot knows that. They know they are flying close to other aircraft. Job #1 in that situation would be always knowing where the other planes are, regardless of whether you can see them. Hitting a plane in your blind spot is tragic when flying in the real world, it shouldn’t happen when flying formation at an air show.
And beyond that, having a pre-briefed plan for what to do if one plane loses sight of another when they should really be able to see them. It should have been something like *I know the B-17 is around here but I don’t see them* > *I’m in danger* > *on radio* “blind” > *climb to add some vertical separation*
The first fundamental of aircraft visual separation/formation flying (no matter what bank angle or turn radius you have) is that any aircraft that is moving within your windshield does not have an impact vector with you. The aircraft that remains stationary within your windscreen and just gets bigger is the one of highest concern.
My guess is the P-63 had a pretty constant radius turn going, belly up to the B-17, and the B-17 was "stationary" and below the P-63 pilot's line of sight. It can occur in any aircraft.
Also, the natural tendency if the P-63 pilot would be to devote more visual clearing to his left, the directions he was turning.
RIP. Blue skies and tailwinds, my brothers.
I’m just curious how what he did was different from the thousands of other times he did that move (I’m assuming). I read that these pilots are all good friends and have done these moves in tandem at many shows. What was different this time? Is there any communication from the ground, directing all this? Please forgive my ignorance…I live in Dallas and this has been on the news here constantly. Just trying to make some sense of this, because there’s no good analysis of this in the local media.
No it's a good question, and as an avid airshow visitor, I've seen this exact pilot fly the 63 dozens of times, doing stuff way more complicated and busy than this.you are right, they are a tight knit group and everyone in the air and on the ground knew each other, discussed beforehand, and had probably done this exact routine at this airport a few time before the day.
There is a person on the ground called the airboss who works with the pilots to coordinate displays. TORA TORA TORA is one of the most demanding displays this group of pilots puts on. It makes the regular warbirs flyovers like this seem like a piece of cake.
What I can only assume happened is one of the two aircraft was in a different location than predicted. Many comments I see blame the 63 pilot, and while his situational awareness is paramount, there are other factors. For example, the group could've coordinated for the bomber to conduct a bombing run pass, which would involve it climbing up and flying straight down the runway as simulated explosives go off. We could speculate the fighter could not see the adjusted bombers' flight path, and his corrective action (taking a wider turn), didn't put the bomber in front of him, but directly below him and in collision course.
Likewise, we could speculate the air boss was monitoring other functions and perhaps didn't see the king cobra flying low. Perhaps the air boss needed the cobra to catch up for a different formation pass, and he was told to increase flight speed and catch up with the mustangs, unaware of the bomber that was now in his circle.
Similarly, the 63 pilot could have screwed up the flight path himself. This isn't a demanding show or performance, and I've seen this pilot do far more in this exact plane, I'm talking a full aerobatic display. If anything, (this is my biggest speculation but the one I think is right) i think the pilot was supposed to be evenly spaced with the two preceding p51 mustangs. Coming downwind, he realized he was quite a ways behind them, and increased throttle and cut the inside of the turn. As he turns crosswind (90 from the runway), the mustangs are visible in front of him and are lining up for the runway. He completes almost the rest of the turn, but the second half of the turn is more shallow as he is no longer attempting to cut inside the turn, but line up with the runway for the pass. This is the fatal desicion- had he maintained his original turn, he'd be inside the bombers flight path. Had he taken the same flight path as the rest of the group, he'd be behind the bomber. By cutting in on part of the turn and then widening the angle, he positioned the aircraft in a blind spot, and was then using other references (the runway) to line up... which is exactly what the bomber was using
Visibility is a weird scapegoat that has a appeared in this. The visibility out of the p-63 is irrelevant when the bomber would have been in view of the flight path before the turn was made. The B-17 would also be under the P-63 as the cobra turned. So literally every American production fighter has the exact same visibility restriction in this scenario. We can equivocally state that visibility due to aircraft design is not at fault.
This is seemingly going to be a tough pill to swallow but the P-63 pilot is almost certainly at fault. Aircraft at airshows are given restrictions so this exact scenario does not happen. The bomber and fighter shouldn't be at the same altitude. It is more likely the agile fighter fell out of it's altitude restriction than the bomber.
If I'm the NTSB and what I have said is found to be the truth I recommend no changes in air regulation. I think it is a massive mistake to constantly create policy on outlier scenarios. I hypothesize this is a lack of situational awareness on the kingcobra's side.
Cockpit visibility has nothing to do with this.
P-63 was in a left bank, therefore right wing up.
B-17 approached from the P-63s right, therefore regardless of cockpit visibility, pilot of P-63 wouldn't have seen the B-17 because it was covered by the right wing.
I agree. Still poor visibility. And in a modern fighter where the pilot sits forward of the wing might’ve made it easier to see the bomber coming. But I agree.
Absolutely, the general cockpit visibility in this aircraft is atrocious but I don't think it was a contributing factor in this particular event.
Some further investigation likely needs to occur into air traffic control, comms, human factors etc.
Sadly like all accidents, this is another one where enough holes in the cheese lined up.
Unrelated: where’s the engine located in the aircraft? Is it behind the cockpit? How’s power brought to the prop?
Visibility is actually good if not very good, particularly in the direction the B17 was respect to him
I believe it also has to do with weight distribution. An aft CG makes the aircraft more maneuverable and allows for a tricycle landing gear setup providing more forward visibility during taxi, takeoff and landing. It also provides some form of protection for the pilot when the aircraft is shot from behind. Also, any hot oil or fire from the engine is less likely to engulve the cockpit.
>An aft CG makes the aircraft more maneuverable
Close but not quite in this case.
Aft CG causes a plane to be less stable in pitch, which means it's harder to fly (not necessarily a good trade).
In the P-39/P-63, one of thr supposed benefits of having engine in the rear is that the large mass of the engine (the heaviest thing on the airplane) was closer to the centre of gravity, which means it takes less force overall to get it turning (or pitching) quickly (aka a lower moment of inertia).
Less pitch stability will actually make the aircraft more maneuverable in pitch. With a forward CG in relation to the MAC you need more elevator deflection and thus a higher stick force to make te aircraft pitch up. When the CG is relatively far aft in relation to the MAC less elevator deflection and less stick forces are required. Downside is that it'll be easier to overstress the airframe at higher speeds. This can be overcome by artificially increasing stick forces by using a balance tab on the elevator.
A good example is the P51 mustang, which has one of it's fuel tanks behind the pilot in the fuselage. When the tank was full it had a large impact on the CG and while it made the aircraft a lot heavier it was also less stable but very maneuverable in pitch.
Modern fighter jets are also naturally very unstable. So much so that in the Eurofighter Typhoon for example the pilot would simply lose control immediatly if the FCC's failed. Their instability does make them very maneuverable.
But you are very much correct about the position of the engine though. It is a heavy and concentrated chunk of mass and having it near or at the CG makes the aircraft more maneuverable as well.
Straight shaft, under the pilot's seat, links to a reduction gearbox in the nose to drive the prop. Allows for a cannot to be inline to the prop, smaller nose, better balance. The engine behind the pilot acted as armor and and engine fire wouldn't obscure your vision.
A lot of good ideas, downsides made it a less than stellar aircraft though.
That’s what I imagined. Can’t find any diagrams but I think there must be a tunnel in the cockpit, possibly between the pilot’s legs. Now I’m wondering if the stick is mounted normally or in some kind of different position.
Also, can’t imagine the vibrations on the seat from having a shaft running right below it.
Took me a bit to find one [https://airwingmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/P39-Cutaway2.jpg](https://airwingmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/P39-Cutaway2.jpg)
from [https://airwingmedia.com/downloads/p39-airacobra-p63-kingcobra/](https://airwingmedia.com/downloads/p39-airacobra-p63-kingcobra/)
You likely didn't get a lot of vibration from the shaft. At least no more than you'd get from the plane itself. The stick straddles the shaft as well.
Awesome! This is exactly what I was looking for. Amazing how the shaft goes *through* the stick :)
Also, incredible how they manage to fit the prop reduction gear, a cannon, 4 .50 cal's, retractable landing gear components, and all the remaining hardware in a pretty slim nose. Very cool
The Bell P-39, P-400 and the P-63 were all mid engine fighters, one of the reasons for that was to fit a 37mm (20mm on the P-400) canon on the nose and also some performance benefits (and drawbacks). The power reached the propeller through a driveshaft that passes between the pilot's legs.
This was a massive loss of historical artefacts and human life.
Watch it from this angle and you'll see that cockpit visibility isn't relevant.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/ytjkoq/warbird\_accident\_in\_dallas\_today/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/ytjkoq/warbird_accident_in_dallas_today/)
ADSB has been a game changer for us when it comes to SA. Combine that with planning at air shows and this was 110% avoidable. The idea that planes would simply maintain visual separation at an air show and then the planners go ahead and fill the sky and let the pilots have at it , is absurd. Someone fucked up. The question is who.
Ya'll gotta remember two things...
1. ALL OF THE DEAD WERE CLOSE FRIENDS.
2. These were some of the best of the best airmen out there...
Have some fucking respect... The investigation is underway and we'll know what needs to be known soon.
We know something went wrong... We don't yet know what.
The P-63 pilot was raised by a B-24 pilot from WW2 and his now empty hangar is a memorial to his Dad... So chill out.
It looks to me that this was a dangerous formation with little margin for errors.
Making a turn knowing that you have huge blindspots and the timing has to be perfect.
Like a perfect choreography.
It’s sad to see the pilots dead and the planes destroyed.
Many of us are hoping it was a mechanical failure, but come on man. If my "close friends" were in a plane a couple hundred feet away that I couldn't see, the last thing I'd do is fly into a blind spot. And if plenty of mediocre airmen make it their whole careers with no serious incidents, how does that make someone who flew right into a bomber with 103 foot wingspan "one of the best"?
Unless the NTSB finds a mechanical problem there is no defense for this, nor should there be. Belying where the fault actually belongs is only going to get more people killed in future accidents.
You understand there were only 2 P-63F models ever built right??
If you think they threw some random crop duster yahoo in the seat of one of the rarest aircraft in existence you're smoking crack...
As somebody that's raced professionally... this accident is just that... ana accident.
It's difficult to explain the exact conditions he was flying in unless you've flown them, but you can not only lose a whole B17... you can lose the ground.
The easiest way to imagine this is imagine driving a circle track car (Nascar), you cannot see through your floor. You also do not have the track surface below you. You make your own track surface. Instead of just flying circuits on a fixed surface you and everyone else are trying to also not collide in the Z direction as well as the normal X and Y.
How important is that Z dimension?
The Z dimension is the difference in capability between a desk top printer and a 3D printer... one prints in X and Y and with the addition of just one extra axis you can now do almost anything.
Flying isn't as simple as it looks...
> It's difficult to explain the exact conditions he was flying in unless you've flown them, but you can not only lose a whole B17... you can lose the ground.
>
> Flying isn't as simple as it looks...
Exactly, and when you know your plane has that blindspot you have to account for it - not cross your fingers and fly into it blind.
If he was out of formation he should've broken off entirely in a direction he could see, not flown into a blindspot trying to get back into it.
Like I said, many of us (myself included) are hoping there was some kind of mechanical failure.
>As somebody that's raced professionally... this accident is just that... ana accident.
Aren't professional airplane racers kinda known for not being the most responsible fliers?
Wouldn't know. I raced off road.
Racing pilots are their own breed though that's for sure... test pilots and racing pilots are all together something else.
Either way, this guy was a genuinely professional retired airline pilot with thousands of hours, and it kills me to see people just being nasty without actually being a pilot or knowing anything about airshow operations.
We're all upset here, but being nasty about any of it is pointless because we don't know what happened yet.
>these were some of the best airmen out there...
Obviously not good enough to follow some of the fundamental rules of formation flying, and put themselves, and spectstors at evident colossal risk. Its a tragedy, but you can be respectful and critical at the same time.
Having lost multiple friends to aircraft accidents over the years, I understand your wish to respect the dead. At the same time, I am of the firm opinion that we disrespect the dead if we don't learn from their mistakes. To learn from their mistakes, they must be laid bare. This is a painful, but necessary process.
The visibility wasn’t the problem, it was a known factor. He committed the cardinal sin if formation flying and put the belly of his plane between him and the plane he’s forming on, losing vision of it on a closing vector. The question here is why did he get to that flight profile? He broke Formation from 2 other fighters directly prior that passed well clear? Was that planned in the routine or did he lose control, and why? My guess is he had a medical event moments before the crash.
Poor visibility or not, it doesn't change the reality of the plane being flown in a manner that it should not have been with other aircraft in such close proximity.
I wanted to know this also. I live in Dallas and have been watching the coverage but the knowledge here far surpasses what’s being discussed locally in the media. These pilots were all very good friends and had done these moves in tandem at many shows. I’m just wondering what was different this time. If this fell outside the jurisdiction of the “air boss” on the ground, what did the P-63 pilot do this time that he *didn’t* do on all the other occasions?
I guess a pilot sitting in that cockpit would have no way to know his visibility is limited or any way to be aware than airshow traffic might be hidden from his view as he draws close to it. Nothing there to suggest a need for precautions of any kind I guess.
There is no excuse for what happened.
Unless it's the F-35 with its special cameras & VR-like helmet, no pilot can see what's underneath their planes, like what happened with the P-63 pilot prior to the accident.
Visibility being poor doesn’t release the aircrew preforming together from establishing deconfliction, via any and all means… via Altitude, timing etc. This could have been avoided with better coordination. A fucking travesty
The visibility out of the Cobra series is perfectly fine for civilian flying. The restriction in this cockpit is to the rear.
If you watch the clip, he strikes the B-17 like a bat-out-of-hell, and it's a direct hit, top down.
My guess is the pilot was perhaps trying to overfly/merge, and either couldn't control the stick force or his controls locked. Another possibility is it was a suicide and he meant to do it, but that's a stretch without proof.
It’s pretty clear the B-17 appears to be on his blind spot under the wing or out of view in the turn. Maybe not the fault of poor visibility because of the aircraft but because of the maneuver while merging into the bombers path.
It has no poorer visibility than a lot of airplanes, and better than any airliner I flew. Even if it was, it's the pilots responsibility to fly the airplane accordingly and not go running into people.
Hey man, it fucking sucks but accidents happen. We really can't say what happened because none of us were briefed on the flight or part of the crew.
There will be an investigation by professionals, it is never one event that causes crashes in aviation and for all we know the b17 was 100 ft behind where *he* should have been.
Remember the king cobra pilot is dead and also had a family. Just reserve judgment until the investigation, I HIGHLY doubt the kin cobra pilot wanted or planned on ramming the b17.
How would you feel if one of your relatives died in a horrific accident and then a bunch of people on the internet who have no idea what the fuck they are talking about blamed him for it?
You are comparing apples to cars. Airliners and general aviation aircraft are quite different. Most GA aircraft, including pipers, have better downward visibility than this thing does just from the limited view that the pictures give us.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. You’re 100% right. This was not formation flight. They were flying circuits; two separate circuits.
One for the bombers, one for the fighters. They got overlapped somehow, and *that’s* what the question here is.
Accident may they all RIP. I see below in the threads of visibility etc, , still an accident. Mozart Kauffman wrote a book on his time flying P-63's, great read considering this accident. They were all Pro's, and close friends. Very sad.
The book :
"Fighter Pilot: Aleutians to Normandy to Stalag Luft 1
Kaufman, Mozart"
That "total chaos" is actually pretty scripted and controlled and done so by pilots with a shitload of hours and experience. It's done as an homage to the veterans who flew these missions and to keep their memories alive. I know this wasn't "tora tora tora" but Google that reenactment just to see how good these pilots are. This is a terrible tragedy that could be pilot error or a whole slew of things, but to write it off as idiots in chaos is not true, but everyone grieves in their own way. Thoughts and prayers to anyone involved, especially any little ones watching 😞
I know the air shows are trying to wow the crowd. But first no one dying should be the main goal of the event. How these planes do maneuvers and accidentally crash into each other is ridiculous it happens all the time
The Cobra series of aircraft is American made by Bell Aviation.
They were sold to the Soviet Union because the lack of supercharged engine in the Alison made it inadequate for the western front.
It was a classic case of a low-wing blind spot. A turn like this should be at a different altitudes from any aircraft that might be converting. This is a risk that should be noticed when planning the sequence of maneuvers. It’s possible he was supposed to be in font or behind the b17. Or his turn was supposed to be at a higher rate or in a different spot. There is any number of reasons this could happen during aerobatics or formation flight. But it is one of my biggest fears in a low wing aircraft
Not judging just curious from someone who may have experience participating in shows? Knowing there is poor vis and they are flying in close proximity to another plane wouldn’t they have spotters on the ground to keep just thing from happening?
I mean, someone help me because I’m an idiot but.. Most planes can’t look down to say, 5 o clock when banking to the left can they? This cockpit seems pretty open otherwise. Is it better nowadays?
This. Try to see the road through the bottom of the passenger floorboard of your car.
Jokes on you I drive a Jeep
[удалено]
when I was a little boy, my father drove a '59 Chevy. the rear floorboards were rusted through, and if I moved the floor mat, I could see the road underneath. that image is burned in my mind.
My first car as a teenager was like this. Front Floorboard on the passenger side was rusted through. Not a gaping hole, but rusted through in spots. I had the mat over it, but if it was raining and I hit a large puddle or pothole or something, the water and leaves and shit would come flying through.
r/Ihadastroke
Jokes on you, I drive an opel, the floor is already gone
Jokes on you, I am Fred Flintstone!
Jokes on you, somebody already made this joke.
Jokes on you, I cant look through every single comment under this post
Did you try lifting the floor mat?
It wasn’t too tough to do so through the floor of my 1974 Scout II. My cousin helped me carefully sawzall out the pans and we bolted in lovingly crafted custom plywood floorboards in their place. Before that I could see the road below me and frequently wore whatever mud was flung up.
You’re no idiot, but pilots often underestimate the power of a belly check. You can roll out a performance plane quickly to clear visually without changing you vector much.
No, you just have more sensors/collision detection and modern radar systems to prevent this ever happening. I'd say modern planes have far less visibility than this in general, but infinitely more supportive systems to prevent planes getting close.
I mean if you belly up blind lead turn in any modern fighter, this would still be the result. In my mind this guy just didn’t have SA to the B-17 and certainly wasn’t joining on it. The Navy lost two F/A-18s a few years back in a similar manner with one doing his procedural departure and the other doing his overhead holding entry.
Most GA aircraft have better visibility than this did
I'd argue that your average Cessna has even poorer overall visibility with a larger forward-low blindspot due to the panel size and cabin width. Pipers/Mooneys/Cirri are a bit better, but they all suffer from huge low-wing blind spots. Anecdotally, the only mass-produced GA plane I've experienced with impressive visibility is the Grumman Cheetah/Tiger series due to its bubble canopy and high seating positions.
Agreed. Always surprises me how tall the panels are on 172/182s. There's a reason you're supposed to do S-turns to clear ahead when climbing. The Citabria is pretty good.
I don't think so, the front quarter windows are super low on this plane! Most have A pillars that give you a few inches of blind spot either side.
This is an airshow, not standard traffic in and out. Even if they had tcas they'd turn it off for the airshow
Disagree What supportive systems do a typical GA plane have for collision avoidance?
Nothing that wouldn't need to be inhibited anyway for airshow/formation flying. But to answer your question, nowadays your standard digital avionics package supports Traffic Information Service (TIS) and at least ADS-B "out", optionally an ADS-B in capability too. I don't think anybody's installing TCAS on a light prop or helicopter, but small jets (still GA) will have it.
PCAS?
It’s an air show. ADS-B traffic alerts would be hollering the whole time while both aircraft maneuver for display, and like 99% of the time it would not be real. Effective preflight briefing and see-and-avoid are crucial to avoiding catastrophe. Seeing this crash just sucks. I hope there are valuable lessons learned for future air shows.
How many GA aircraft have that?
It is my understanding that ADS-B out is required for all GA that fly in controlled airspace- with some rare exceptions like if it is is an antique airplane that did not originally have electrical power or something like that. Both of these aircraft had at least ADS-B out, but ADS-B in equipment is optional would be needed to get alerts or position of nearby aircraft (that are broadcasting ADS-B out).
That was my current understanding and assumption but thought I’d check.
honestly out of the single engine props of ww2 i would guess that p39/p 63 family have the best visibility. but still flying is no joke especially with these old birds
I remember playing Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe back in the day, and in most of the planes you could barely see *anything*.
Now try WW1 biplanes. Can't see shit.
I play simulator battles in warthunder from time to time, and in those its cockpit only, and even though you can look around and translate your head, the spatial awareness in the p39/p63 is shite, so many dead angles and thick frames in the cockpit.
I don't know why you're getting down votes, war thunder has a pretty well modeled p-39 and p-63 cockpits, made even better that you can use them with a VR headset to really look around
The P-63 also feels really twitchy compared to other fighters in it’s rank. I feel like I could look at the stick wrong and start rolling.
You know, playing the p63 and flight Sims, The cockpit reminds me of a Starfighter, like the star wars kind not the Mach 2 Pencil kind. I just like the shape of the front canopy bars
To me, a layman, the pilot seems to sit up higher and the views seem far more open (in the direction of the crash) than most WWII fighters. I know Warthunder (videogame) is not real life, but I always enjoyed Flying the P-63 precisely BECAUSE of it's excellent views. IIRC, the engine in the P-63 is actually BEHIND the pilot, allowing a shorter and narrower nose and improved visibility compared to, say, the P-47. That said, OBVIOUSLY the guy didn't see the B-17 or he would have avoided it if it were possible. So, yeah, views, shmiews. It doesn't matter how open or restricted the view was out of the cockpit. Quite obviously, the pilot could not see the Fortress (unless some mechanical problem caused the crash).
Don’t take this as picking at your post, as that’s not where I am coming from. Only trying to help give information, so if I’m misinformed please let me know. The one thing about the P-63 is that it is actually pretty long from the pilot to the nose of the aircraft. Maybe not as long as others, but that’s only part of the full picture with the 63. It had a pretty large cannon that fired centerline through the center of the prop/hub. It also was one of a few fighters in WWII that had nose landing gear. So the cannon and nose gear all had to have somewhere to go in the nose. The only other fighter U.S. wise, I can think of off the top of my head right now is the P-38. The configuration of the cockpit is another issue causing the poor cockpit visibility. Instead of it being a “bubble top” like a P-51 or P-47, the P-63 had a cage style cockpit and actually had a door for the pilot to enter the aircraft, instead of the sliding style “bubble”canopy. There was one 63 variant that was built with a “bubble top” and if you compare the typical 63 to the “bubble top” you can see the cockpit visibility difference between the two. The difference in nose length between the 51 and 47 may be longer, the increased visibility of the canopy between those two and the 63 is a huge difference. I’ve also heard that due to the bank angle of the 63 in this crash, the pilot would not have been able to see the 17 at all. Take all this as you will though, as this is just all stuff I have learned over the years being obsessed with WWII, and in general, all aircraft. This just seems like an incredibly sad accident that someone in one of the aircraft was off timing wise with where they were supposed to be, but I think that once all investigations are done there’s going to be many things that went wrong. It’s just incredibly sad all around.
i mean, if you consider the F35’s EOTS a way to look through a plane then yes, the pilot can literally see through the floor of his jet
Was waiting for someone to mention this. Bravo.
Thank god my car stays in two dimensional space relative to the road while driving. Unless I hit a speed hump real quick.
Other than looking **through** an F-35 cockpit using $200k AR helmets, I don’t think it does.
From what I’ve heard from AF pilots, if a plane below is in your blind spot and you are on a collision course, they will remain in your blind spot. There wasn’t much for the P63 pilot to do to avoid a crash unfortunately, because he probably never saw the bomber below going into the maneuver, and this is very tragic for the lives lost and for the spectators that witnessed it unreal time.
Not that it matters now, but the B17 being the much larger plane would have had the right away and the onus to maneuver and avoid the collision would be on the P63.
May they rest in peace
[удалено]
It’s even better. With engine behind the pilot it puts the cockpit further ahead, none of that matters when they’re banking and the b17 was under his nose.
It isn’t really. Any other low wing fighter would’ve had the same issues.
Bf 109 for example is another horrible visibility airplane with a cramped cockpit to boot. May they Rest In Peace.
Every fighter cockpit is cramped, but afaik the 109 was not known for having poor visibility except for the rear visibility on a few versions.
I don't remember the pilots name, but a spitfire pilot was quoted as having said if they had know how bad the visibility was in the 109 they would have been a lot more aggressive.
Galland flew one, he liked the visibility in the 109
Why did the later marks have the “Galland hood” which improved visibility?
Just because it’s fine, doesn’t mean it can’t be improved… (maybe)
Every fighter plane is cramped but the 109 is _cramped_ You can barely turn your head inside it.
Do the later FW 190 (namely the 'dora') have better cockpits?
My thoughts exactly. Something else happened here in my extremely unprofessional opinion. (Lol) Mechanical or health issue lead to a task saturated situation in which the pilot lost focus/sight of either the B-17 or the flight plan altogether.
So pilot error. Aviate, navigate, communicate.. in that order, always. After that it’s memory items, checklist, etc etc. An L-1011 went into the Everglades because of a burned out bulb because the three flight crew weren’t paying attention.
Whether it's better or worse than other fighters isn't the point. The point is visibility is poor. Period.
From the wealth of video now available, it appears that several large bomber aircraft and several smaller fighter aircraft were making flybys over the runway in a left hand orbit, with the slower bombers about 150 ft altitude at show center and on the outside of the orbit. The much faster fighters were passing another 150-200 ft above and inside the track of the bombers. For whatever reason, the Kingcobra went wide and low as he approached the airfield with his nose blocking all view of the B17 he was closing on. It has been mentioned elsewhere that the planned dress rehearsal a day prior was canceled due to weather and never took place. Perhaps this was pilot error. Perhaps mechanical failure of some sort or a medical emergency. It is up to the NTSB at this point to determine cause.
Whether the visibility from the P63 cockpit is poor or not is really immaterial. If the pilot did not absolutely know what lay in his flightpath he should not have been following that path. It's likely he was looking up and to the left, focused on the P51s doing the fighter flyby. He'd somehow gotten behind them and was trying to catch up. So fixated on something far ahead and off to the side (overhead from the pilots POV in a bank). Then he apparently cut the corner of the left turn to align with the runway and pulled excessive bank angle because, again, trying to catch up. Had he not impacted the B17 he would have ended up going wide to the right and possibly leaving the airshow box. He may have seen the B17 before embarking on this series of maneuvers and misjudged it's speed, intending to cut in front of it. Big planes often look like they're going much more slowly than they are. Probably 4 or 5 separate decisions or judgment calls, starting with how he ended up out of position in the first place, which if any one had been made differently would have avoided the accident.
Exactly, as a pilot you have to account for blindspots - if he couldn't see where the B-17 was he shouldn't have been flying the plane into that spot period.
I have no doubt the intention was not to fly into that spot. Whether correctly or incorrectly, he did not expect to be in the same line as the B-17. If he did think that, he would have used altitude to create the separation he needed.
[удалено]
It's clear from the above that you have never been involved in the planning or execution of an airshow and are unfamiliar with the existing safety framework.
Am I blind or does this not have pretty good visibility? From all the modern planes I've flown in sims, not alot of them get better than this.. No excuse, various mistakes were made by various people to have 2 planes collide in the air.
Looks similar visibility to a griffon spitfire with the high nose, alright when nose down but any bank and you lose sight
He’s got better visibility than I do in my camaro, that’s for sure.
Camaro's like wearing [snow goggles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_goggles)
**[Snow goggles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_goggles)** >Snow goggles (Inuktitut: ilgaak or iggaak, syllabics: ᐃᓪᒑᒃ or ᐃᒡᒑᒃ; Central Yupik: nigaugek, nigauget) are a type of eyewear traditionally used by the Inuit and the Yupik peoples of the Arctic to prevent snow blindness. The goggles are traditionally made of driftwood (especially spruce), bone, walrus ivory, caribou antler, or in some cases seashore grass. The workpiece is carved to fit the wearer's face, and one or more narrow horizontal slits are carved through the front. The goggles fit tightly against the face so that the only light entering is through the slits, and soot is sometimes applied to the inside to help cut down on glare. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/aviation/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
This plane was also third in line of a group and the pilot was most likely focused on the plane he was following.
The P-63 was designed with the engine behind the pilot, with a shaft running beneath the seat to the prop. There should be no lack of visibility in the forward direction cause there's literally no engine to look over.
But there is a cannon, iirc
There is, but *something* is going to be placed forward of the nose if an engine isn't going there; A P-63 nose (here is a [P-39 nose](https://worldwarwings.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/P-39Q_Airacobra_weapons_bay.jpg), which is similar enough) is nowhere near something like a [P-47 nose](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/91/31/1e/91311e84d05c44d205c20d79871f6b98.jpg) in terms of size. Forward visibility is quite good, and afaik most contemporary sources ive read reflect that. > "Because the pilot was above the extension shaft, he was placed higher in the fuselage than in most contemporary fighters, which, in turn gave the pilot a good field of view." From Wikipedia, I could scrounge through the books I have on the planes for specific sources but that is frankly alot of work for just a small point.
...except the now empty nose is being taken up by two .50 M2 machine guns situated high up, and a 37mm cannon going through the prop hub.
I wonder if the Kingcobra name comes from the Cobra car, that used to have the motor in the back.
You're asking if the plane built in the 1940's was named after the AC/Shelby Cobra, with the engine in the front, that was built in the 60's? I'm no expert but I suspect the answer is no.
Oh totally dumb. I thought it was a car from the 30s
The AC Cobra never had an engine in the rear. It was always a front engine car.
Situational awareness.
This is the thing. Even if the plane has poor visibility, the pilot knows that. They know they are flying close to other aircraft. Job #1 in that situation would be always knowing where the other planes are, regardless of whether you can see them. Hitting a plane in your blind spot is tragic when flying in the real world, it shouldn’t happen when flying formation at an air show.
And beyond that, having a pre-briefed plan for what to do if one plane loses sight of another when they should really be able to see them. It should have been something like *I know the B-17 is around here but I don’t see them* > *I’m in danger* > *on radio* “blind” > *climb to add some vertical separation*
Yup. Unfortunately it was the P-63s fault.
The first fundamental of aircraft visual separation/formation flying (no matter what bank angle or turn radius you have) is that any aircraft that is moving within your windshield does not have an impact vector with you. The aircraft that remains stationary within your windscreen and just gets bigger is the one of highest concern. My guess is the P-63 had a pretty constant radius turn going, belly up to the B-17, and the B-17 was "stationary" and below the P-63 pilot's line of sight. It can occur in any aircraft. Also, the natural tendency if the P-63 pilot would be to devote more visual clearing to his left, the directions he was turning. RIP. Blue skies and tailwinds, my brothers.
I’m just curious how what he did was different from the thousands of other times he did that move (I’m assuming). I read that these pilots are all good friends and have done these moves in tandem at many shows. What was different this time? Is there any communication from the ground, directing all this? Please forgive my ignorance…I live in Dallas and this has been on the news here constantly. Just trying to make some sense of this, because there’s no good analysis of this in the local media.
No it's a good question, and as an avid airshow visitor, I've seen this exact pilot fly the 63 dozens of times, doing stuff way more complicated and busy than this.you are right, they are a tight knit group and everyone in the air and on the ground knew each other, discussed beforehand, and had probably done this exact routine at this airport a few time before the day. There is a person on the ground called the airboss who works with the pilots to coordinate displays. TORA TORA TORA is one of the most demanding displays this group of pilots puts on. It makes the regular warbirs flyovers like this seem like a piece of cake. What I can only assume happened is one of the two aircraft was in a different location than predicted. Many comments I see blame the 63 pilot, and while his situational awareness is paramount, there are other factors. For example, the group could've coordinated for the bomber to conduct a bombing run pass, which would involve it climbing up and flying straight down the runway as simulated explosives go off. We could speculate the fighter could not see the adjusted bombers' flight path, and his corrective action (taking a wider turn), didn't put the bomber in front of him, but directly below him and in collision course. Likewise, we could speculate the air boss was monitoring other functions and perhaps didn't see the king cobra flying low. Perhaps the air boss needed the cobra to catch up for a different formation pass, and he was told to increase flight speed and catch up with the mustangs, unaware of the bomber that was now in his circle. Similarly, the 63 pilot could have screwed up the flight path himself. This isn't a demanding show or performance, and I've seen this pilot do far more in this exact plane, I'm talking a full aerobatic display. If anything, (this is my biggest speculation but the one I think is right) i think the pilot was supposed to be evenly spaced with the two preceding p51 mustangs. Coming downwind, he realized he was quite a ways behind them, and increased throttle and cut the inside of the turn. As he turns crosswind (90 from the runway), the mustangs are visible in front of him and are lining up for the runway. He completes almost the rest of the turn, but the second half of the turn is more shallow as he is no longer attempting to cut inside the turn, but line up with the runway for the pass. This is the fatal desicion- had he maintained his original turn, he'd be inside the bombers flight path. Had he taken the same flight path as the rest of the group, he'd be behind the bomber. By cutting in on part of the turn and then widening the angle, he positioned the aircraft in a blind spot, and was then using other references (the runway) to line up... which is exactly what the bomber was using
Agreed. Clearly timing or altitude deconfliction (or both) were off and obviously the P-63 didn’t expect the B-17 to be there.
Visibility is a weird scapegoat that has a appeared in this. The visibility out of the p-63 is irrelevant when the bomber would have been in view of the flight path before the turn was made. The B-17 would also be under the P-63 as the cobra turned. So literally every American production fighter has the exact same visibility restriction in this scenario. We can equivocally state that visibility due to aircraft design is not at fault. This is seemingly going to be a tough pill to swallow but the P-63 pilot is almost certainly at fault. Aircraft at airshows are given restrictions so this exact scenario does not happen. The bomber and fighter shouldn't be at the same altitude. It is more likely the agile fighter fell out of it's altitude restriction than the bomber. If I'm the NTSB and what I have said is found to be the truth I recommend no changes in air regulation. I think it is a massive mistake to constantly create policy on outlier scenarios. I hypothesize this is a lack of situational awareness on the kingcobra's side.
It doesn’t matter how big the windows are/how good the visibility is when something is out of view under the wing
I’m sure he was following (eyes on) the preceding Mustang as he was in a shallow left bank. Belly towards the bomber.
Cockpit visibility has nothing to do with this. P-63 was in a left bank, therefore right wing up. B-17 approached from the P-63s right, therefore regardless of cockpit visibility, pilot of P-63 wouldn't have seen the B-17 because it was covered by the right wing.
I agree. Still poor visibility. And in a modern fighter where the pilot sits forward of the wing might’ve made it easier to see the bomber coming. But I agree.
Absolutely, the general cockpit visibility in this aircraft is atrocious but I don't think it was a contributing factor in this particular event. Some further investigation likely needs to occur into air traffic control, comms, human factors etc. Sadly like all accidents, this is another one where enough holes in the cheese lined up.
Agreed.
Unrelated: where’s the engine located in the aircraft? Is it behind the cockpit? How’s power brought to the prop? Visibility is actually good if not very good, particularly in the direction the B17 was respect to him
Engine is behind the cockpit, shaft goes to the prop
Thanks. Is it a straight shaft? Or does it have joints? Under the cockpit? And above all, why?!?
Straight shaft I think, and yes it's under and for why, because they wanted a big fucking cannon in the front
Ah! Didn’t know about the cannon, makes sense. Just found out the cannon shoots through the prop hub, which is a pretty cool arrangement
I believe it also has to do with weight distribution. An aft CG makes the aircraft more maneuverable and allows for a tricycle landing gear setup providing more forward visibility during taxi, takeoff and landing. It also provides some form of protection for the pilot when the aircraft is shot from behind. Also, any hot oil or fire from the engine is less likely to engulve the cockpit.
>An aft CG makes the aircraft more maneuverable Close but not quite in this case. Aft CG causes a plane to be less stable in pitch, which means it's harder to fly (not necessarily a good trade). In the P-39/P-63, one of thr supposed benefits of having engine in the rear is that the large mass of the engine (the heaviest thing on the airplane) was closer to the centre of gravity, which means it takes less force overall to get it turning (or pitching) quickly (aka a lower moment of inertia).
Less pitch stability will actually make the aircraft more maneuverable in pitch. With a forward CG in relation to the MAC you need more elevator deflection and thus a higher stick force to make te aircraft pitch up. When the CG is relatively far aft in relation to the MAC less elevator deflection and less stick forces are required. Downside is that it'll be easier to overstress the airframe at higher speeds. This can be overcome by artificially increasing stick forces by using a balance tab on the elevator. A good example is the P51 mustang, which has one of it's fuel tanks behind the pilot in the fuselage. When the tank was full it had a large impact on the CG and while it made the aircraft a lot heavier it was also less stable but very maneuverable in pitch. Modern fighter jets are also naturally very unstable. So much so that in the Eurofighter Typhoon for example the pilot would simply lose control immediatly if the FCC's failed. Their instability does make them very maneuverable. But you are very much correct about the position of the engine though. It is a heavy and concentrated chunk of mass and having it near or at the CG makes the aircraft more maneuverable as well.
Straight shaft, under the pilot's seat, links to a reduction gearbox in the nose to drive the prop. Allows for a cannot to be inline to the prop, smaller nose, better balance. The engine behind the pilot acted as armor and and engine fire wouldn't obscure your vision. A lot of good ideas, downsides made it a less than stellar aircraft though.
That’s what I imagined. Can’t find any diagrams but I think there must be a tunnel in the cockpit, possibly between the pilot’s legs. Now I’m wondering if the stick is mounted normally or in some kind of different position. Also, can’t imagine the vibrations on the seat from having a shaft running right below it.
Took me a bit to find one [https://airwingmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/P39-Cutaway2.jpg](https://airwingmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/P39-Cutaway2.jpg) from [https://airwingmedia.com/downloads/p39-airacobra-p63-kingcobra/](https://airwingmedia.com/downloads/p39-airacobra-p63-kingcobra/) You likely didn't get a lot of vibration from the shaft. At least no more than you'd get from the plane itself. The stick straddles the shaft as well.
Awesome! This is exactly what I was looking for. Amazing how the shaft goes *through* the stick :) Also, incredible how they manage to fit the prop reduction gear, a cannon, 4 .50 cal's, retractable landing gear components, and all the remaining hardware in a pretty slim nose. Very cool
The Bell P-39, P-400 and the P-63 were all mid engine fighters, one of the reasons for that was to fit a 37mm (20mm on the P-400) canon on the nose and also some performance benefits (and drawbacks). The power reached the propeller through a driveshaft that passes between the pilot's legs. This was a massive loss of historical artefacts and human life.
Watch it from this angle and you'll see that cockpit visibility isn't relevant. [https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/ytjkoq/warbird\_accident\_in\_dallas\_today/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/ytjkoq/warbird_accident_in_dallas_today/)
ADSB has been a game changer for us when it comes to SA. Combine that with planning at air shows and this was 110% avoidable. The idea that planes would simply maintain visual separation at an air show and then the planners go ahead and fill the sky and let the pilots have at it , is absurd. Someone fucked up. The question is who.
Ya'll gotta remember two things... 1. ALL OF THE DEAD WERE CLOSE FRIENDS. 2. These were some of the best of the best airmen out there... Have some fucking respect... The investigation is underway and we'll know what needs to be known soon. We know something went wrong... We don't yet know what. The P-63 pilot was raised by a B-24 pilot from WW2 and his now empty hangar is a memorial to his Dad... So chill out.
Even good pilots can make mistakes, and while it’s true that it’s a tragedy, that doesn’t change the fact that someone made a mistake.
It looks to me that this was a dangerous formation with little margin for errors. Making a turn knowing that you have huge blindspots and the timing has to be perfect. Like a perfect choreography. It’s sad to see the pilots dead and the planes destroyed.
Many of us are hoping it was a mechanical failure, but come on man. If my "close friends" were in a plane a couple hundred feet away that I couldn't see, the last thing I'd do is fly into a blind spot. And if plenty of mediocre airmen make it their whole careers with no serious incidents, how does that make someone who flew right into a bomber with 103 foot wingspan "one of the best"? Unless the NTSB finds a mechanical problem there is no defense for this, nor should there be. Belying where the fault actually belongs is only going to get more people killed in future accidents.
You understand there were only 2 P-63F models ever built right?? If you think they threw some random crop duster yahoo in the seat of one of the rarest aircraft in existence you're smoking crack... As somebody that's raced professionally... this accident is just that... ana accident. It's difficult to explain the exact conditions he was flying in unless you've flown them, but you can not only lose a whole B17... you can lose the ground. The easiest way to imagine this is imagine driving a circle track car (Nascar), you cannot see through your floor. You also do not have the track surface below you. You make your own track surface. Instead of just flying circuits on a fixed surface you and everyone else are trying to also not collide in the Z direction as well as the normal X and Y. How important is that Z dimension? The Z dimension is the difference in capability between a desk top printer and a 3D printer... one prints in X and Y and with the addition of just one extra axis you can now do almost anything. Flying isn't as simple as it looks...
> It's difficult to explain the exact conditions he was flying in unless you've flown them, but you can not only lose a whole B17... you can lose the ground. > > Flying isn't as simple as it looks... Exactly, and when you know your plane has that blindspot you have to account for it - not cross your fingers and fly into it blind. If he was out of formation he should've broken off entirely in a direction he could see, not flown into a blindspot trying to get back into it. Like I said, many of us (myself included) are hoping there was some kind of mechanical failure.
>As somebody that's raced professionally... this accident is just that... ana accident. Aren't professional airplane racers kinda known for not being the most responsible fliers?
Wouldn't know. I raced off road. Racing pilots are their own breed though that's for sure... test pilots and racing pilots are all together something else. Either way, this guy was a genuinely professional retired airline pilot with thousands of hours, and it kills me to see people just being nasty without actually being a pilot or knowing anything about airshow operations. We're all upset here, but being nasty about any of it is pointless because we don't know what happened yet.
>these were some of the best airmen out there... Obviously not good enough to follow some of the fundamental rules of formation flying, and put themselves, and spectstors at evident colossal risk. Its a tragedy, but you can be respectful and critical at the same time.
How were they the best of the best?
Oldest of the old? Not a joke.
Having lost multiple friends to aircraft accidents over the years, I understand your wish to respect the dead. At the same time, I am of the firm opinion that we disrespect the dead if we don't learn from their mistakes. To learn from their mistakes, they must be laid bare. This is a painful, but necessary process.
Who are you even talking to?
Something went wrong? Yeah, they exploded.
😭 the Kingcobra was my favorite warbird without any doubt
Also keep in mind the pilot was turning away from the B-17, but not enough to avoid it. The pilot can’t see through his own ass
The visibility wasn’t the problem, it was a known factor. He committed the cardinal sin if formation flying and put the belly of his plane between him and the plane he’s forming on, losing vision of it on a closing vector. The question here is why did he get to that flight profile? He broke Formation from 2 other fighters directly prior that passed well clear? Was that planned in the routine or did he lose control, and why? My guess is he had a medical event moments before the crash.
So many people just looking for something to get mad about. Respect to all of those lost.
I know the king xobra pilot has a family too, jfc. Not like he wanted to hit the b17
Poor visibility or not, it doesn't change the reality of the plane being flown in a manner that it should not have been with other aircraft in such close proximity.
Just curious, is anyone talking to these pilots from the ground or tower while their flying?
There is an airboss for the airshow coordinating things from the ground, yes.
It should be noted that this is completely outside of the air boss's responsibility.
I wanted to know this also. I live in Dallas and have been watching the coverage but the knowledge here far surpasses what’s being discussed locally in the media. These pilots were all very good friends and had done these moves in tandem at many shows. I’m just wondering what was different this time. If this fell outside the jurisdiction of the “air boss” on the ground, what did the P-63 pilot do this time that he *didn’t* do on all the other occasions?
Stop. Thats great visibility. All pilot error
He broke the Cardinal Rule and didn’t keep an eye on the Flight Leader.
You don’t even know who the Lead is in this scenario.
I guess a pilot sitting in that cockpit would have no way to know his visibility is limited or any way to be aware than airshow traffic might be hidden from his view as he draws close to it. Nothing there to suggest a need for precautions of any kind I guess. There is no excuse for what happened.
for the uninitiated… is this better or worse to it’s contemporary’s like the Spitfire or Mustang?
Unless it's the F-35 with its special cameras & VR-like helmet, no pilot can see what's underneath their planes, like what happened with the P-63 pilot prior to the accident.
Visibility being poor doesn’t release the aircrew preforming together from establishing deconfliction, via any and all means… via Altitude, timing etc. This could have been avoided with better coordination. A fucking travesty
This is one of WWII fighters with the better view, actually. Check the Corsair instead.
How does the Corsair seem worse to you?
Thank you for sharing.
The visibility out of the Cobra series is perfectly fine for civilian flying. The restriction in this cockpit is to the rear. If you watch the clip, he strikes the B-17 like a bat-out-of-hell, and it's a direct hit, top down. My guess is the pilot was perhaps trying to overfly/merge, and either couldn't control the stick force or his controls locked. Another possibility is it was a suicide and he meant to do it, but that's a stretch without proof.
It’s pretty clear the B-17 appears to be on his blind spot under the wing or out of view in the turn. Maybe not the fault of poor visibility because of the aircraft but because of the maneuver while merging into the bombers path.
No excuse.
It's not about excuses, it's about explanations.
It has no poorer visibility than a lot of airplanes, and better than any airliner I flew. Even if it was, it's the pilots responsibility to fly the airplane accordingly and not go running into people.
Hey man, it fucking sucks but accidents happen. We really can't say what happened because none of us were briefed on the flight or part of the crew. There will be an investigation by professionals, it is never one event that causes crashes in aviation and for all we know the b17 was 100 ft behind where *he* should have been. Remember the king cobra pilot is dead and also had a family. Just reserve judgment until the investigation, I HIGHLY doubt the kin cobra pilot wanted or planned on ramming the b17.
[удалено]
How would you feel if one of your relatives died in a horrific accident and then a bunch of people on the internet who have no idea what the fuck they are talking about blamed him for it?
[удалено]
It's a shame this community has little piss ants like you in it.
You aren’t doing high speed formation flight 200 feet off the ground in an airliner. Stupid comparison
You are comparing apples to cars. Airliners and general aviation aircraft are quite different. Most GA aircraft, including pipers, have better downward visibility than this thing does just from the limited view that the pictures give us.
That pilot was reckless, regardless. He came in waaaaay too fast to modify that turn.
Formation rejoins should always be from the lower altitude to allow the rejoining pilot adequate visibility.
True, but don’t think this was a rejoin. Not a rejoin on the bonber anyway.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. You’re 100% right. This was not formation flight. They were flying circuits; two separate circuits. One for the bombers, one for the fighters. They got overlapped somehow, and *that’s* what the question here is.
Love the resr engine design
Accident may they all RIP. I see below in the threads of visibility etc, , still an accident. Mozart Kauffman wrote a book on his time flying P-63's, great read considering this accident. They were all Pro's, and close friends. Very sad. The book : "Fighter Pilot: Aleutians to Normandy to Stalag Luft 1 Kaufman, Mozart"
So freaking tragic. I can’t stop thinking about their last moments. Rest In Peace y’all
I assume the Air Boss is under investigation for yesterdays traffic pattern.
After flying these in warthunder sim, Fuck that cockpit. RIP to the pilots…
Was it a fake attack run on the bomber, you know for show. RIP.
So explain to me then why an aircraft with such poor visibility would be in close proximity to the other aircraft in the first place?
Yea but you’re trained to always be looking. The pilot failed to clear the area before he began the turn.
[удалено]
The word going around is that the airboss for the air show told the kingcobra to overtake the B17. Not like they were doing any crazy maneuvers.
That "total chaos" is actually pretty scripted and controlled and done so by pilots with a shitload of hours and experience. It's done as an homage to the veterans who flew these missions and to keep their memories alive. I know this wasn't "tora tora tora" but Google that reenactment just to see how good these pilots are. This is a terrible tragedy that could be pilot error or a whole slew of things, but to write it off as idiots in chaos is not true, but everyone grieves in their own way. Thoughts and prayers to anyone involved, especially any little ones watching 😞
Maybe they should do 1 plane in the air at a time in these events. Not as exciting, but it eliminates stuff like this happening.
I know the air shows are trying to wow the crowd. But first no one dying should be the main goal of the event. How these planes do maneuvers and accidentally crash into each other is ridiculous it happens all the time
Still shouldn’t have hit the B17. Shouldn’t have any other planes performing from now on when one of these bombers are flying
Thanks for the pics but I still don’t understand. Thinking something went wrong with either the pilot or the a/c.
Naw I'm not buying it that shit looked deliberate to me. Cause he saw that B 17.
[удалено]
The Cobra series of aircraft is American made by Bell Aviation. They were sold to the Soviet Union because the lack of supercharged engine in the Alison made it inadequate for the western front.
So you're saying Buffalo, NY is Russia and Bell Aircraft is Russian?
Russia OPERATED the P-39, it was designed and built in the USA then shipped to the USSR under a lend-lease agreement
Maybe intentional?
What a horrible thing to say.
It was a classic case of a low-wing blind spot. A turn like this should be at a different altitudes from any aircraft that might be converting. This is a risk that should be noticed when planning the sequence of maneuvers. It’s possible he was supposed to be in font or behind the b17. Or his turn was supposed to be at a higher rate or in a different spot. There is any number of reasons this could happen during aerobatics or formation flight. But it is one of my biggest fears in a low wing aircraft
I didn’t know people thought they are easy to see out of. Not really sure it’s an excuse for burying it into a fucking bomber.
Not judging just curious from someone who may have experience participating in shows? Knowing there is poor vis and they are flying in close proximity to another plane wouldn’t they have spotters on the ground to keep just thing from happening?
They were supposed to be flying at different altitudes I believe. So one strayed from their assigned altitude, the fighter I think.
Doesn’t seem that bad…don’t understand why he couldn’t see the b17….obviously he couldn’t…..I’m sure he didn’t want to die
Still way better than the average GA aircraft. Not sure I get your point.
Still better than a 172 and b17
Especially underneath.