There At it Again!! Steve Fossett Search

[old_pop2000]

Well, some foolish group is going out again, looking for the lost aircaft of Steve Fossett.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/14/fossett.search.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Many of you may remember my running account of the search for this character south of Fallon, Nevada. I was stationed at Fallon and trust me, Steve Fossett is coyote and mountain lion bait by now. Bon Appetite. :rolleyes:

[Ed Rotondaro]

Well, some foolish group is going out again, looking for the lost aircaft of Steve Fossett.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/14/fossett.search.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview


Many of you may remember my running account of the search for this character south of Fallon, Nevada. I was stationed at Fallon and trust me, Steve Fossett is coyote and mountain lion bait by now. Bon Appetite. :rolleyes:

Dennis:

Well I appreciate their sentiment, but as you say he's dead and probably been scavenged by some sort of animal.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Well I appreciate their sentiment, but as you say he's dead and probably been scavenged by some sort of animal.

Ed:
My problem with this sort of activity is that it dredges up old feelings for the family who has closure now and risks other human lives. Just because you can't find the body, does not mean there isn't some sort of closure. What difference does it make to discover the rotted, half eaten corpse of this fool. Anyone, who knows the area and knows flying, would have taken far better precautions in his preflight than Steve Fossett. So who really cares what happened? He either had a medical problem and crashed, ran out of gas and crashed or flew into the side of a very hard mountain, and crashed. Game, set and match!! Trust me, space aliens did not take him.

You send a team of amateurs out in that country, this time of year, and you are asking for trouble.

[djcyclone]

This is the first I have heard of it. I guess I should watch the news more often.:confused:

[old_pop2000]

This is the first I have heard of it. I guess I should watch the news more often.:confused:

No problem, here is the Steve Fossett website link that might help get you up to date.

http://www.stevefossett.com/

[old_pop2000]

Here is an interesting quote:


The final story line, the one that remained after all the others fizzled out, was this: A wild state swallowed a big man and refused to give him up.

Duh!!:rolleyes:

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed:
My problem with this sort of activity is that it dredges up old feelings for the family who has closure now and risks other human lives. Just because you can't find the body, does not mean there isn't some sort of closure. What difference does it make to discover the rotted, half eaten corpse of this fool. Anyone, who knows the area and knows flying, would have taken far better precautions in his preflight than Steve Fossett. So who really cares what happened? He either had a medical problem and crashed, ran out of gas and crashed or flew into the side of a very hard mountain, and crashed. Game, set and match!! Trust me, space aliens did not take him.

You send a team of amateurs out in that country, this time of year, and you are asking for trouble.

Dennis:

Yes, that terrain is just as dangerous on foot as it would be to fly over if you didn't know what you were doing. I wonder if somebody is funding this for a TV documentary?

[old_pop2000]

Well, they've been at it for a week, and the "elite team" hasn't found Steve Fossett. I'll bet the coyote's and Mountain Lions didn't have a problem.

They maybe looking for an intact aircraft, I would be looking for a pile of junk. :rolleyes::D

[Ed Rotondaro]

Well, they've been at it for a week, and the "elite team" hasn't found Steve Fossett. I'll bet the coyote's and Mountain Lions didn't have a problem.

They maybe looking for an intact aircraft, I would be looking for a pile of junk. :rolleyes::D

Dennis:

The debris field would be scattered all over the place.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

The debris field would be scattered all over the place.

No, it wouldn't be scattered. The Bellanca Super Decathlon is not a large aircraft and I doubt he was moving that fast, cruising speed around 125-128 MPH. Probably in one big clump, with a few scattered pieces several yards away. It depends on how he hit. If he hit a mountain, then it would most likely slide down the mountain or tumble down to the bottom. That might make it hard to find.

The only way to get a scattered debris field is to explode in the air or clip a wing and cartwheel. I don't see a small aircraft like the Bellanca cartwheeling very far before coming to rest.

My best guess is that he knew the Bellanca was an aerobatic aircraft, attempted to do something and hit the ground. If he was an experienced long distance flyer, he would have realized his gas situation, and started to look for a flat, rock free area to set her down [good luck looking for a rock free area]. Failing that, he might have just decided to ease her in anywhere, and hit something hard. He is probably still in the wreck, if the little animals didn't drag him away for brunch with the gang.

[Ed Rotondaro]

No, it wouldn't be scattered. The Bellanca Super Decathlon is not a large aircraft and I doubt he was moving that fast, cruising speed around 125-128 MPH. Probably in one big clump, with a few scattered pieces several yards away. It depends on how he hit. If he hit a mountain, then it would most likely slide down the mountain or tumble down to the bottom. That might make it hard to find.

The only way to get a scattered debris field is to explode in the air or clip a wing and cartwheel. I don't see a small aircraft like the Bellanca cartwheeling very far before coming to rest.

My best guess is that he knew the Bellanca was an aerobatic aircraft, attempted to do something and hit the ground. If he was an experienced long distance flyer, he would have realized his gas situation, and started to look for a flat, rock free area to set her down [good luck looking for a rock free area]. Failing that, he might have just decided to ease her in anywhere, and hit something hard. He is probably still in the wreck, if the little animals didn't drag him away for brunch with the gang.

Dennis:

Grisly scenario any way it happened.

[Spook046]

Kind of dredging all of this up, but being out of the posting loop for a awhile, and seeing this subject........


My problem with this sort of activity is that it dredges up old feelings for the family who has closure now and risks other human lives. Just because you can't find the body, does not mean there isn't some sort of closure. What difference does it make to discover the rotted, half eaten corpse of this fool. Anyone, who knows the area and knows flying, would have taken far better precautions in his preflight than Steve Fossett. So who really cares what happened? He either had a medical problem and crashed, ran out of gas and crashed or flew into the side of a very hard mountain, and crashed. Game, set and match!! Trust me, space aliens did not take him.

You send a team of amateurs out in that country, this time of year, and you are asking for trouble.

There's no getting around Dennis's point above that if Steve Fossett had provided a flight plan, that would have helped narrow the search. And, if still a fatal wreck, a more prompt discovery would have at least spared the actual drawn-out agony of his family and friends left to wonder what happened to him.

The added irony is that (per media reports at that time) Steve did have some tracking devices along with him. But the trick is they have to work, that they didn't work suggests that the wreck was a very sudden impact that took out the trackers too.

So, in fairness, we have to admit that somehow and in some way, Steve dropped the ball and the Darwinian odds caught up with him.

However...........

It'd also be a bit unjust to assume that Steve's final lapses of judgement were exceedingly unique even when comparing with some other historical figures who seemingly "should've known better" at some given point.

One such case that jumps to mind for me is that of Maj Thomas McGuire, the second highest scoring US fighter pilot of WWII. In his final mission of Jan 1945, when his flight of P-38's got jumped by one (and then soon another) Japanese fighter over Los Negros island, he apparently directed for his flight members to keep their drop tanks on so not to have to cut short the flight's mission range. Basically, he figured that they all could handle one Japanese plane even with tanks on. However, the Japanese pilot was solid in his prior flight and combat experience and was difficult to evade. In taking his own evasive turn, still with tanks on and only a few hundred feet off the ground, McGuire pulled too tight, stalled out and went right into the ground. Another Japanese plane came (also flown by a sharp pilot) and soon took out one more of the P-38's (Maj Rittmayer's).

Interestingly, McGuire is historically regarded to have been one of the most proficient of P-38 pilots, who knew better than most on what a P-38 could or could not do. And he had earlier laid out rules saying that tight maneuvers on a P-38 with drop tanks was a BIG no-no. But on this occasion, he threw his rules out the window, and paid for it, and having his flight hang on to the drop tanks for too long might have helped set up Maj Rittmayer to get nailed too.

The next example of mine also traces to WWII, rewinding further back by half a year to the Normandy campaign. In early July 1944, the 354th Fighter Group (one of the hottest outfits in air combat success in the ETO) was approached to help provide an observation flight in one of their P-51's for a certain "high-ranking figure." The plane in mind was a war-weary P-51B that had its fuselage tank removed weeks earlier to allow installation of an added seat behind the pilot's. The purpose envisioned then was to use the plane as a occasional rear-echelon "hack" or to help instruction of newer replacement pilots. However, Gen Dwight Eisenhower got it into his mind that he wanted an aerial tour of the Normandy battle zone --- and he wanted to do so in a fighter plane. Therefore, he got into the back seat of the noted two-seater P-51 (with Gen Quesada as the pilot) and got a one-hour flight over Normandy without any hitches.

The problem, however, was that the back seat didn't allow the passenger to wear a parachute --- nor could the passenger get clear of the cockpit even if he could wear one! Needless to say, if the two-seater got hit by enemy fire or if the engine suddenly conked out, the guy in back would have been up the proverbial creek without a paddle. If that happened during Ike's flight, his loss as SHAEF commander at that particular time of the Normandy campaign would have been rather "inopportune" --- put mildly.

That certainly had to be on Gen Marshall's mind when he learned of this flight the next day (through the newspapers), and immediately chewed out Ike over the matter.

By all rights and reasons, should not Ike had known better than to risk this flight, risking the turbulence of who would take over (in case of Ike's loss) in the middle of a major military campaign where the prospect for success still remained unknown? Fortunately, both for him and the western Allies in general, he was lucky that time.

These are just two such examples, and I'm sure we could find a host of others, of some historically famous figure who still pushed the odds when apparently he or she should've known better. Steve Fossett is by no means alone in this matter.

Now back to Steve --- as Dennis has pointed out earlier, Fossett's conduct in this last flight of his was foolish to not have had a flight plan filed beforehand. But I personally stop short of labeling him as a fool in general, considering that in his final years he still had accomplished much that had been so inspirational to others.

One story I had read earlier was how Sir Richard Branson and Steve had their first meeting. Branson was a competitor to Steve's efforts to set round-the-world balloon flights, but during one of Fossett's attempts, Branson opted to show up and wish him well as a good sport. Approaching Fossett's crew, Branson soon got to talking with one member and eventually said to this effect: "Of course, in all honesty, one has to be a bit daft to be taking on something like this." The crew member responded, "I guess so. By the way, I'm Steve Fossett." Their close friendship was forged from that point onwards.

Considering all the various world records that Steve strove for (he set 115 of them!), one might still fairly regard him a fool in seeming too much to be a danger junkie. But I recall some comments of Steve's that go along these lines: "Some people think I have no regard for the dangers involved in my past record attempts or bother with managing the risks. But that's not true. My crew and I try to do all that we can for safety measures. I guess I'm trying to show what can be done, and that others can do it too when technology advances and risk management allows it."

For his pros and cons, I hope that is something that is never forgotten of Steve Fossett --- his "can-do" attitude. And at least for me, his presence as an inspirational figure is missed, particularly during this election year where so many three-ring circus clowns posing as "political leaders" spend so much time pandering for votes and presume that to be "inspirational". (Okay, political rant mode off.)

The funny thing is at this point of time I now prefer that the Nevada wilderness keep Steve hidden for least one or two generations, if not forever. Why? Because that could help keep up enough mystery for people to remain curious about Steve for decades to come. It'd be a bit like the Georges Guynemer mythos: "He flew so high that he couldn't come back down."

Other's mileage might vary.........

[old_pop2000]

.....
The added irony is that (per media reports at that time) Steve did have some tracking devices along with him. But the trick is they have to work, that they didn't work suggests that the wreck was a very sudden impact that took out the trackers too.

So, in fairness, we have to admit that somehow and in some way, Steve dropped the ball and the Darwinian odds caught up with him. [/FONT][/COLOR]



I've had to trim the quote and might have missed something important. But here goes. First of all, Steve Fossett was a well trained pilot FOR THE RECORD SETTING MISSIONS THAT HE PERFORMED. Unfortunately, the Citabria he that jumped into, and had never flown, was not an easy plane to fly. It is a small, light aircraft of simple construction and the winds in the Nevada desert, howling through those passes are something you have to experience to believe. They would have blown that plane around something fierce. The plane was not Steve Fossetts and we don't know how much he knew about its flight characteristics. Private pilots have safety records like motorcycle drivers. It isn't real good. A common term is "time in type". The more hours you have in a particular type of aircraft, the better you can fly it. Not just on clear days, no wind, but in all kinds of conditions. You become familiar with its idiocyncracies so that in difficult times, you can manage the aircraft.

Just because he could fly a glider( I have) or the globalFlyers does not qualify him to fly a small, light tail dragger like the Citabria. The plane is underpower for windy, hot days in mountains. This aircraft has a ceiling just about the same as the western Sierra Nevada's he was flying through. If he was searching for a dry lake bed, then although a flight plan is important and I feel he should have filed one, I must be honest because I doubt he would have followed it. But it might have given the searchers somewhere to look.

However, in the end, it is entirely possible that he had a stroke or some medical issue and simply flew into the ground. I have doubts about that, so I feel that he probably was looking at the ground for a site for his record attempt and simply flew into a mountain.

If Steve Fossett was an inspiration, then wouldn't he be more of an inspiration alive, not missing under these circumstances. With nothing to go on, everyone can speculate on how he died and it diminishes his accomplishments. No matter how you cut it, if was a foolish mistake, and he paid the price.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Kind of dredging all of this up, but being out of the posting loop for a awhile, and seeing this subject........



[The funny thing is at this point of time I now prefer that the Nevada wilderness keep Steve hidden for least one or two generations, if not forever. Why? Because that could help keep up enough mystery for people to remain curious about Steve for decades to come. It'd be a bit like the Georges Guynemer mythos: "He flew so high that he couldn't come back down."

Other's mileage might vary.........

Spook:

The story of McGuire's death was recounted pretty much as you mention in Martin Caidin's book "Fork-Tailed Devil". When comparing it to Steve Fassets disappearance, one wonders if there wasn't a little of the old "familiarity breeds contempt" attitude. As far as he was concerned it was a routine flight, something he had done hundreds of times. But it just goes to show that the sky is harsh and unforgiving on those who treat it lightly, just like the ocean.

Ike's flight is recounted in Carlo D'Este's book on Eisenhower. What make me laugh is why didn't he just chose a B-25 or A-20 medium bomber? They operated low to the ground, they were rugged and he could have worn a parachute and been heavily escorted. I believe his desire to fly in a fighter stems from his learning to fly while serving in the Philippines in the 1930s. By all accounts he was an average pilot who had trouble with landings due to being farsighted.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I've had to trim the quote and might have missed something important. But here goes. First of all, Steve Fossett was a well trained pilot FOR THE RECORD SETTING MISSIONS THAT HE PERFORMED. Unfortunately, the Citabria he that jumped into, and had never flown, was not an easy plane to fly. It is a small, light aircraft of simple construction and the winds in the Nevada desert, howling through those passes are something you have to experience to believe. They would have blown that plane around something fierce. The plane was not Steve Fossetts and we don't know how much he knew about its flight characteristics. Private pilots have safety records like motorcycle drivers. It isn't real good. A common term is "time in type". The more hours you have in a particular type of aircraft, the better you can fly it. Not just on clear days, no wind, but in all kinds of conditions. You become familiar with its idiocyncracies so that in difficult times, you can manage the aircraft.

If Steve Fossett was an inspiration, then wouldn't he be more of an inspiration alive, not missing under these circumstances. With nothing to go on, everyone can speculate on how he died and it diminishes his accomplishments. No matter how you cut it, if was a foolish mistake, and he paid the price.

Dennis:

Good points about safety records for pilots. While overall air travel is the safest way to go, the bulk of accidents are by private pilots in small planes. It would be interesting to see if these pilots were weekenders or made their living flying small planes. Flying is unforgiving and sadly enough Fossett seems to have forgotten that.

[old_pop2000]

The story of McGuire's death was recounted pretty much as you mention in Martin Caidin's book "Fork-Tailed Devil". When comparing it to Steve Fassets disappearance, one wonders if there wasn't a little of the old "familiarity breeds contempt" attitude. As far as he was concerned it was a routine flight, something he had done hundreds of times. But it just goes to show that the sky is harsh and unforgiving on those who treat it lightly, just like the ocean.



I don't think comparing McGuire's death in combat, is the same as Steve Fossett's. McGuire's death was a result of a command decision to retain external fuel tanks to maintain the mission. He was an experienced combat leader with many hours in type. Unfortunately, we don't really know what happened other than his aircraft went into a spin from 300 ft. after transitioning from a gentle high speed turn to a much tighter turn. The P-38 as configured, was a heavy aircraft and in a low to medium speed turning duel with an experienced KI-84 Frank pilot, was at a severe disadvantage. There may have been some mitigating circumstances like pilot fatigue, malaria or other diseases, etc. The flight surgeon's job would be to recognize that kind of fatigue and ground the pilot. Constant transition from high altitude flying in a cold cockpit to low hot sultry environment can cause numerous other medical issues. Constant combat, making command decisions can mentally wear out a combat leader.

McGuire and his flight had been doing low level airfield runs and as such, were in a bad situation to be jumped by the much more maneuverable KI-84. Possibly had they had top cover from other P-38's, they could have had some assistance, but alas that wasn't to be. I am not certain as the version of P-38, but if he did not have the maneuvering flaps, then he was in trouble. If he did, then he could have popped those and that might have helped him to maintain the turn and not spin out. The P-38 is a heavy aircraft and not forgiving in a low altitude spin.

This is not comparable to a pilot, with no time in type, who takes out an underpowered, fabric covered light aircraft in the Nevada scrub forest and mountain region with high up/down drafts, over 60 years old, with no flight plan and emergency devices.

You dance with the devil too many times, and he will get his just reward. Let's not compare a fine pilot like Tommy McGuire to a grandstander like Steve Fossett.

[asnrobert]

What's that old saying?

"There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots."

[old_pop2000]

What's that old saying?

"There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots." You bet, that is very true. As I have said, fighter pilots are very careful, organized people. They follow flight procedures as proscribed by the flight manuals for the aircraft and the doctrine as proscribed by the military. To deviate is to invite disaster. There are really no Pete Mitchell's in the fighter community.

[Spook046]

If Steve Fossett was an inspiration, then wouldn't he be more of an inspiration alive, not missing under these circumstances. With nothing to go on, everyone can speculate on how he died and it diminishes his accomplishments.



How so?

McGuire did what he did and paid his own price (possible helping to cause the loss of a fellow P-38 too), but that doesn't change at all what he accomplished priorhand in his service with the 475th FG. He still remains the No. 2 US ace, and I have seen occasional past arguments that he was in balance a more proficient pilot than Dick Bong. Possibly he was, regardless of his final fatal blunder.

Eisenhower took on a risky flight, and fortunately nothing happened to him on that flight. But whatever his questionable discretion in using a fighter to do an observation flight where the back-seat bail-out option was nil, that has no bearing IMO on assessing Ike's leadership qualities and military/political accomplishments.

"To err is human" --- the examples serve to remind that sometimes some "human factor" creeps in and undercuts what would otherwise be the best discretion or judgement at that time. So it went with Steve too.

And as it has often gone with me in my own life too.



No matter how you cut it, if was a foolish mistake, and he paid the price.

If, per your added argument that Steve wasn't qualified enough to fly the noted aerobatic plane, I would agree, and again he paid the price.

[Spook046]

I don't think comparing McGuire's death in combat, is the same as Steve Fossett's. McGuire's death was a result of a command decision to retain external fuel tanks to maintain the mission. He was an experienced combat leader with many hours in type. Unfortunately, we don't really know what happened other than his aircraft went into a spin from 300 ft. after transitio ning from a gentle high speed turn to a much tighter turn. The P-38 as configured, was a heavy aircraft and in a low to medium speed turning duel with an experienced KI-84 Frank pilot, was at a severe disadvantage. There may have been some mitigating circumstances like pilot fatigue, malaria or other diseases, etc. The flight surgeon's job would be to recognize that kind of fatigue and ground the pilot. Constant transition from high altitude flying in a cold cockpit to low hot sultry environment can cause numerous other medical issues. Constant combat, making command decisions can mentally wear out a combat leader.


Or perhaps, after being grounded for a stretch by Gen Kenney after getting to Kill no. 38 while Bong was completing his PR tour (sent home Dec 44) as the "top ace", McGuire got too eager in looking for kills.

It's possible that McGuire's flight would have made some significant altitude transitions before coming back down "on the deck" while approaching the Japanese airbases (I believe Leyte was still the home base then), but really any different from his prior missions?

If anything, McGuire had caught a bit of a break just beforehand in his earlier grounding, which probably mitigated some of the fatigue that would have likely been much more manifest in the severe air battles over Leyte in Nov/Dec 1944.



McGuire and his flight had been doing low level airfield runs and as such, were in a bad situation to be jumped by the much more maneuverable KI-84. Possibly had they had top cover from other P-38's, they could have had some assistance, but alas that wasn't to be. I am not certain as the version of P-38, but if he did not have the maneuvering flaps, then he was in trouble. If he did, then he could have popped those and that might have helped him to maintain the turn and not spin out. The P-38 is a heavy aircraft and not forgiving in a low altitude spin.


By then, McGuire and his squadron mates were mainly flying P-38L's which certainly had the maneuvering flaps and dive brakes. His prior P-38, "Pudgy (V)" was a P-38L that he basically "wore out" with hard flying.



This is not comparable to a pilot, with no time in type, who takes out an underpowered, fabric covered light aircraft in the Nevada scrub forest and mountain region with high up/down drafts, over 60 years old, with no flight plan and emergency devices.

You dance with the devil too many times, and he will get his just reward. Let's not compare a fine pilot like Tommy McGuire to a grandstander like Steve Fossett.

The central point is if McGuire told his flight to hang on to their drop tanks when they were first jumped. One web reference I flipped through states that he did, inferring that McGuire might have been too focused to seek more engagement chances in that same mission; I'll have to confirm in due time later.

If he did order to hang on to the tanks, that was the first mistake: he misjudged his opposition. And he violated his own earlier declared rules on what not to do with a P-38. Bigger mistakes in sum than what Steve did. Fortunately no one else paid Steve's price, but in McGuire's case, it remains possible that McGuire's final orders (over the drop tanks) had helped bring about the loss of Maj Rittmayer when his plane was caught in a high-speed firing pass by the second Japanase pilot (Sukuda) very soon after McGuire bellied in.

I'll probably have to review this controversial mission some more.

The point is being missed here, Dennis. My basis of comparison is not about how good or bad were Fossett and McGuire as pilots. My point is that sometimes human judgement comes up short, but using one event alone to judge someone can be shallow.

Now, if Steve was warned by Decathlon pilots enough about its flying characteristics, and further warned by experienced "stump jumper" Nevada pilots of the precarious winds over there, and chose to ignore them all anyway, then yeah, that was big-time foolish. Or if he knew all that anyway, then also big-time foolish to have punted on the flight plan.

I suppose we can take up Ike next time. ;)

[Spook046]

Ike's flight is recounted in Carlo D'Este's book on Eisenhower. What make me laugh is why didn't he just chose a B-25 or A-20 medium bomber? They operated low to the ground, they were rugged and he could have worn a parachute and been heavily escorted. I believe his desire to fly in a fighter stems from his learning to fly while serving in the Philippines in the 1930s. By all accounts he was an average pilot who had trouble with landings due to being farsighted.

Good catch, Ed, I was waiting to see if someone would take note of the reasonable alternates available in other planes (regarding "emergency egress") if Ike was resolved to make the observation flight.

I don't hold it against Ike to want to fly over and check out the battle zone, just that his means of doing so was more than a bit on the risky side. (If he still had to do it in a fighter, geez, he shoulda used a P-47! :D Nahhhh.....) Again, Marshall wasn't amused.

The 354th FG took it in pride when it was over, of course, giving the two-seater P-51B hack the name "The Stars Look Down".

An added bit of irony was at that time, Gen Montgomery, in his discontent with AEAF chief Leigh-Mallory (contempt mutually shared), felt that L-M should've hopped over the Channel in a Mosquito to visit and talk with him more directly in regards to tactical air operations or learn of the Normandy ground situation more directly. "But he won't do it, the gutless bugger!"

[old_pop2000]

McGuire did what he did and paid his own price (possible helping to cause the loss of a fellow P-38 too), but that doesn't change at all what he accomplished priorhand in his service with the 475th FG. He still remains the No. 2 US ace, and I have seen occasional past arguments that he was in balance a more proficient pilot than Dick Bong. Possibly he was, regardless of his final fatal blunder.



McGuire was caught in a bad situation, having just eluded a Ki-43 by using a gentle turn, then he got jumped by a KI-84. If he had maintained that gentle turn, the Frank would have certainly pulled lead on him, and shot him down with 20 mm cannons. If he had attempted to snap back and enter a rolling scissors, he might have spun in or the Frank would have again pulled lead and killed him. He had no altitude, he could not outrun the 20 mm cannon shells by leveling out, climbing would have only make the situation worse, so all that's left is to tighten the turn and hope the plane stays in the air. In and of itself, the failure to drop tanks based on the initial encounter was not a bad decision, it only became bad when jumped during the turn. Again, as we always say, the fickle finger of fate syndrome struck.

There is no comparison between his death and a pilot taking out a plane he is unfamiliar with, in a region known to be deadly to small aircraft which has had numerous light plane losses in it, without a whit of a flight plan and few emergency resources. Sorry, that is not just bad judgement. It is arrogance, something a pilot cannot afford.

[old_pop2000]

....
The point is being missed here, Dennis. My basis of comparison is not about how good or bad were Fossett and McGuire as pilots. My point is that sometimes human judgement comes up short, but using one event alone to judge someone can be shallow.

Now, if Steve was warned by Decathlon pilots enough about its flying characteristics, and further warned by experienced "stump jumper" Nevada pilots of the precarious winds over there, and chose to ignore them all anyway, then yeah, that was big-time foolish. Or if he knew all that anyway, then also big-time foolish to have punted on the flight plan.




Steve Fossett, as an experienced pilot should not have had to be warned about an aircraft he was unfamiliar with. A checkout ride with an experience Citabria pilot would have been advisable along with the flight plan. However, he probably should have kept his flight short and in familiar territory until he was better able to judge the planes characteristics.

We have another old example of a very experience pilot, that flew beyond HER capability. That's right, Amelia Earhart. She had been warned by her mentor for the world flight, Paul Mantz an equally famous pilot, that she was not ready for the flight. Her knowledge of long distance flying over water, RT procedures etc. was minimal. She failed to listen and paid the price. She was within site of Howland, but her poor RT procedures did not allow the CG Itasca operator to gain a fix on her. So, she went into the water, probably dying on impact, so what the hell.

The point here is, that she accomplished much, but what do we remember; Her failed around the world flight and the fact that she is missing. We don't remember her accomplishments, just her one failure to heed a warning. This is the same for Fossett, all of his great accomplishments pale in comparison to his disappearance. The unknowns of it, the light aircraft, the region, weather etc. This is what people will remember of Steve Fossett. Fossett should have checked with the FAA weather to find out what the weather was in the area, but he was on a private airfield. However, the up/down drafts are almost impossible to predict, as the number of disappearances over the years can attest to. Everyone who flies in that area, knows the problems. I feel for his family. They do not need to go through this.

[Spook046]

McGuire was caught in a bad situation, having just eluded a Ki-43 by using a gentle turn, then he got jumped by a KI-84.

The earlier net references held that the Ki-84 showed up after McGuire stalled and crashed, rather it was the initially arriving Ki-43 that McGuire was trying to evade. Again, I'll try to confirm with some print-reference checks soon.



There is no comparison between his death and a pilot taking out a plane he is unfamiliar with, in a region known to be deadly to small aircraft which has had numerous light plane losses in it, without a whit of a flight plan and few emergency resources. Sorry, that is not just bad judgement. It is arrogance, something a pilot cannot afford.

My comparison is that overall McGuire showed very bad judgement in his own situation too; if he was still was holding on to his drop tanks, then he should have dropped them before pulling his tight turn.

McGuire was felled by his own arrogance, we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this. And possibly cost the life of other of his pilots IF he ordered for them to also hang on to their tanks. They were already at low altitude, and obviously not at "boom and zoom" speed. Not a good tactical situation to keep on drop tanks. Nope.

[Spook046]

Fossett should have checked with the FAA weather to find out what the weather was in the area, but he was on a private airfield. However, the up/down drafts are almost impossible to predict, as the number of disappearances over the years can attest to. Everyone who flies in that area, knows the problems. I feel for his family. They do not need to go through this.

Yes, I agree. I noted that too regarding Fossett's family and friends in my initial post here.

[old_pop2000]

The earlier net references held that the Ki-84 showed up after McGuire stalled and crashed, rather it was the initially arriving Ki-43 that McGuire was trying to evade. Again, I'll try to confirm with some print-reference checks soon.


My comparison is that overall McGuire showed very bad judgement in his own situation too; if he was still was holding on to his drop tanks, then he should have dropped them before pulling his tight turn.

McGuire was felled by his own arrogance, we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this. And possibly cost the life of other of his pilots IF he ordered for them to also hang on to their tanks. They were already at low altitude, and obviously not at "boom and zoom" speed. Not a good tactical situation to keep on drop tanks. Nope.


First problem, you cannot release the drop tanks in a turn like that, the G force from the release will yaw the plane and result might be the same. He would have had to straighten the plane out and then release them. By that time, Sgt. Kukuda would have killed him. Both Kukuda and WO Sugimoto were air combat instructors, one flying the KI-43 III and the other flying the KI-84. Both had many hours of combat flying against various aircraft, including the P-38 and P-51 while flying over Leyte.

A couple of notes: McGuire was not flying his famous Pudgy V that day. He stated in a report that "Try to make the Jap commit himself, then turn into his attack. If forced to turn, go to the right. Never reverse your turn. " He also stated" On the missions we have been flying in the past months, gas economy has been of paramount consideration. Gas economy should always be practiced, but on long range missions it becomes essential to save gas. ...."

The point of all this is that McGuire, as the flight leader had valid reason for leaving the tanks on. He was only facing, initially one Ki-43-III and felt the four experienced P-38 pilots could handle the issue. He made a command decision to maintain the mission and it cost him. The decision was not wrong, based on the need to conserve fuel. The mission is clouded in circumstantial evidence, however the Kukuda is still alive and has been interviewed and a hand drawing of the crash site has been developed. They are currently writing a report, which should provide give us a much better idea of what truly happened.

Apparently, McGuire had made the dangerous maneuver to save the life of one of his pilots, wingman Ed Weaver. It succeeded, as Weaver was saved but McGuire was not.

[Spook046]

First problem, you cannot release the drop tanks in a turn like that, the G force from the release will yaw the plane and result might be the same.


I did say earlier, punch off the tanks before the tight pull.



He would have had to straighten the plane out and then release them. By that time, Sgt. Kukuda would have killed him.


Or released them in the earlier asserted gentle turn. And again, was it Sukuda or Sugimoto (the Ki-43 pilot who first arrived)? Insofar, I've seen it declared it was the latter causing McGuire's stall. But Sugimoto's plane was soon hit too and after his crash-landing, he was beset and killed by Filipino guerillas, so we don't have his own story for a postwar accounting.



A couple of notes: McGuire was not flying his famous Pudgy V that day.


That's because he used it up into war-weary status and was soon due another regular plane. But likely he was still flying another P-38L.



He stated in a report that "Try to make the Jap commit himself, then turn into his attack. If forced to turn, go to the right. Never reverse your turn. " He also stated" On the missions we have been flying in the past months, gas economy has been of paramount consideration. Gas economy should always be practiced, but on long range missions it becomes essential to save gas. ...."


Gas economy didn't mandate keeping on drop tanks in that scenario. Almost all of Los Negros Island is within 200 km of Dulag on Leyte.



The point of all this is that McGuire, as the flight leader had valid reason for leaving the tanks on.


Not in the situation of an enemy plane getting the jump, be it one, two or a dozen enemy aircraft. If his flight could get the jump instead, then perhaps more valid, if still risky (especially if flying against proficient Japanese pilots).



He was only facing, initially one Ki-43-III and felt the four experienced P-38 pilots could handle the issue. He made a command decision to maintain the mission and it cost him.


Him and one other of his pilots.



The decision was not wrong, based on the need to conserve fuel.


The decision was still wrong in general to be flying at lower speed and at lower altitude with drop tanks, given the scattered cloud. It risked being jumped where the P-38's couldn't fight to their best advantage, and that's what happened.

For flying to Los Negros, why were the drop tanks even needed in the first place? Because McGuire was trying to maximize his sweep endurance to maximize chances for an air engagement. Which is fine, but with drop tanks, a greater altitude cushion (storing of potential energy) would have shown better discretion if cloud cover allowed the possibility of an enemy ambush.



Apparently, McGuire had made the dangerous maneuver to save the life of one of his pilots, wingman Ed Weaver. It succeeded, as Weaver was saved but McGuire was not.

McGuire may have tried to get Sugimoto to latch onto him instead of Weaver with the gentle turn, but as Sugimoto closed, that's when McGuire pulled into the stall.

McGuire may have helped out Weaver as the immediate result, but he put his flight into a tactical situation that had them all at a disadvantage in the first place. It put Weaver into risk that forced McGuire to attempt a fatal reactionary move, and created the situation for Wittmayer's loss very soon after.

There were clouds about, that's what the two surviving P-38 pilots ducked into at one later point of the fight. With cloud cover, it could just have well been an equal number of Ki-84's (four) or even more which would have beset McGuire's flight, and that none of them would have gotten home.

[Spook046]

Apologies for going to Wiki for now, Dennis (I recall you're not particularly fond of that as a ref site), I'll have to do better later. Anyway, when read in full, a couple of retractions are needed on my part.....



On January 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_7), 1945 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945), McGuire was leading a group of four P-38s (he leading the flight, others being Major Jack Rittmayer (four victories), Captain Edwin Weaver (two victories) and Lieutenant Douglas Thropp (one victory), during a fighter sweep over northern Negros Island in the central Philippines. Their aim was to gain victories: McGuire desperately wanted to pass Major Richard Bong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bong)'s score of 40 kills. After descending through cloud cover, McGuire’s flight orbited a Japanese airfield at Fabrica and then proceeded to a second Japanese airstrip at Manapla (also referred to as Carolina). As they approached Manapla they were confronted by a lone Ki-43 Hayabusa (“Oscar”) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-43), which immediately engaged McGuire's flight.

Flying in the number-three position, Lt. Doug Thropp observed the lone bogie trying to attack him in a head-on pass. Lt. Thropp instinctively broke hard left in an attempt to thwart the bogie's attack. The bogie turned with Thropp and fell into a trail position behind him while firing on him. Major Rittmayer, flying as Thropp's wingman, turned sharply towards the bogie and began firing on him. Meanwhile Major McGuire saw that the bogie was being engaged by Rittmayer and turned away from the dogfight to face an imminent threat to the flight from the opposite direction. Unfortunately for Major McGuire and his flight, the pilot of the lone Japanese aircraft, Warrant Officer Akira Sugimoto, was an instructor pilot with thousands of hours in that type of aircraft, broke away from Thropp and Rittmayer and reversed his turn to find McGuire and his wingman Ed Weaver directly in front of him. Sugimoto was easily able to catch up to McGuire and Weaver and attack them from behind.

As Sugimoto approached Weaver from behind, Weaver radioed that the bogie was now attacking him and cut to the inside of the turn to give Sugimoto a more difficult shot. McGuire, seeing that his wingman was being threatened, eased up on his turn rate in an effort to draw the bogie off of his wingman and onto himself. Sugimoto took the bait and switched his attack to McGuire. As Sugimoto approached from behind, Major McGuire attempted to thwart Sugimoto's attack by rapidly increasing his turn rate. Regretably this extremely dangerous maneuver, performed at only 300 feet above the ground, caused Major McGuire to stall his P-38, which then snap-rolled to an inverted position and then pitched down and crashed into the ground. He was killed on impact. At the start of the dogfight, McGuire had radioed everyone to keep their auxiliary fuel tanks, as they would be needed to reach their main objective later in the sweep. Many of McGuire's fellow P-38 pilots believe that this order, which was contrary to standard operating procedures, was the direct cause of McGuire's death.

After McGuire's crash Lt. Thropp caught up to Sugimoto and fired on him causing enough damage to his aircraft that he had to make a forced landing a few miles away from where McGuire crashed.

Less than a minute later, another Japanese aircraft, a Ki-84 Hayate (“Frank”) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-84) piloted by Technical Sergeant Mizunori Fukuda, appeared on the scene from the nearby airstrip at Manapla and attacked Major Jack Rittmayer in a head-on pass. Rittmayer's P-38 disintegrated from cannon shots and pitched down crashing into a river. Rittmayer was killed on impact. Captain Weaver observed Fukuda's attack on Rittmayer and fired at Fukuda severely damaging his aircraft. Fukuda later crash landed at Manapla where his Ki-84 was destroyed. Thropp's P-38 was slightly damaged in the action and trailed smoke from one engine. Eventually Weaver and Thropp returned to Dulag, Leyte.

McGuire's crash was witnessed by Filipinos, who immediately rushed to the scene and secured his remains so that they would not fall into the hands of the Japanese. In 1947, his remains were recovered by the US Army and returned to the United States. He was buried with full military honors at Arlington National Cemetery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlington_National_Cemetery).



If a proper accounting (I assume for now it is), then the approach of Sugimoto from head-on wasn't necessarily a "jump" against McGuire's flight.

And per the accounting above, Fukuda's downing of Rittmayer (I read a different account of the approach a couple days earlier) was head-on, not really an ambush either. Thereby it would be unfair to hold Rittmayer's loss too much on McGuire.

Regardless, it was still a poor tactical situation to be in, especially in choosing to keep on the drop tanks, and would have probably been far worse had there been more Japanese fighters flying about, and if those planes got into an advantageous position. Which was a real possibility in the noted situation of cloud cover.

[old_pop2000]

Some fun stuff.

The internal tankage on a P-38L was 410 US gallons. Now, what is the range of the P-38L on internal tankage? Oh by the way, you cannot use 50 gallons, as it is used on the ground for engine warm up and takeoff, so you only have 360 gallons. That's a gotcha that they don't tell you in the books. Using an official P-38L flight instruction chart, the maximum cruising range is 600 miles for a particular maximum range. You can cruise at very low speeds and extend the range to 1000. Now, for an altitude of 12000 ft., the RPM is 2350, IAS is 267 MPH, mixture is Auto Rich. True Air Speed is 308 MPH and the GPH is 166. Normally, fighter sweeps are not flown at cruising speed the entire distance, once you have entered enemy air space, you accelerate.

So, if he had flown a straight course, with no loiter time, no combat, he would have been able to fly less than 600 miles. Remember that climb out requires military power. On military power, the GPH goes up to 334 gallons or double the cruising consumption. So, as a mission planner, using 166 GPH and 360 gallons, discounting climb out and reserves, you have approx. 2.1 hours of flight time excluding combat. If you engage in combat, and use military power, you will now reduce your flight time considerably. In fact, you have only 15 minutes on military power and 5 minutes on War emergency power.

Briefly, those are the numbers. It should be apparent that the mission plan required more flight time, so drop tanks became a requirement. There were nine airfields in the area of Negros Island including Fabrica which they had just left after circling for 5 minutes.

Now, mate, I am not going to argue with you, but I will suggest that things were a little more complicated than it seems. As to his aircraft, all aircraft fly differently even though they may be the same model. I do not feel this would have had a effect, but it is a variable. The mission that McGuire planned must have entailed a much longer flying time than we believe, because if he did not need tanks, he would not have carried them. No fighter pilot carries external tanks unless it is a valid requirement. There may have been other airfields on Panay which is farther. It is always possible that there was a 5th AF policy for Pilots to carry drop tanks. I don't know. But they were carried for a reason and it must be that the flight time or range to the targets required it.

Now, was McGuire hunting glory, yea he probably was. But, the mission was approved and it was a viable mission to reduce Japanese fighter strength on the outer islands. So, even though we would like to say the mission was unnecessary, that is not entirely true. It had a military purpose and as such was valid.

Did McGuire make a poor judgment? He chose mission requirements over combat requirements. With 20/20 hindsight, he probably should have dropped the tanks and entered combat clean. However, he was in a low altitude medium speed combat environment and this was not the P-38's specialty. It was boom and zoom. He dropped down out of the cloud to get a visual and met the oncoming Japanese aircraft. Thomas McGuire made a combat decision, as was his perogative as the flight leader. Based on what he knew, it was a valid decision. Only hindsight tells us it wasn't. My light number crunching above was an attempt to illustrate how reading books and articles about ranges is deceptive at best. Just because a book says the combat range was 1300 miles, does not mean the aircraft can fly that range on every mission. Combat load is important, range to target, type of missions, altitude etc. Case in point, if McGuire had flown at 20000 feet, his GPH would increase to 179 gallons per hour. At 30000 feet, it increases to 200 gallons per hour. Interestingly, if he had flown at sea level, it would have decreased to 144 GPH. The lowest GPH is at S.L, for 1210 miles, using 1600 rpm and 161 MPH IAS. I am certain that is a ferry mission, not a combat mission.


Note: The larger 300 gallon tanks could not be jettisoned at high or medium speeds. You had to decrease speed to 120 knots with the landing gear and flaps up. the smaller 165 gallons tanks reduced the speed of the plane by 4%. The larger tanks were only used on very long range missions or ferry missions. He must have been using the 165 gallon tanks which empty weighed 90 lbs. As I said, no pilot would reduce his speed by 4% if he did not think he would need the extra fuel.

Anyway, I've bored you long enough.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Or perhaps, after being grounded for a stretch by Gen Kenney after getting to Kill no. 38 while Bong was completing his PR tour (sent home Dec 44) as the "top ace", McGuire got too eager in looking for kills.

It's possible that McGuire's flight would have made some significant altitude transitions before coming back down "on the deck" while approaching the Japanese airbases (I believe Leyte was still the home base then), but really any different from his prior missions?

If anything, McGuire had caught a bit of a break just beforehand in his earlier grounding, which probably mitigated some of the fatigue that would have likely been much more manifest in the severe air battles over Leyte in Nov/Dec 1944.



By then, McGuire and his squadron mates were mainly flying P-38L's which certainly had the maneuvering flaps and dive brakes. His prior P-38, "Pudgy (V)" was a P-38L that he basically "wore out" with hard flying.



The central point is if McGuire told his flight to hang on to their drop tanks when they were first jumped. One web reference I flipped through states that he did, inferring that McGuire might have been too focused to seek more engagement chances in that same mission; I'll have to confirm in due time later.

If he did order to hang on to the tanks, that was the first mistake: he misjudged his opposition. And he violated his own earlier declared rules on what not to do with a P-38. Bigger mistakes in sum than what Steve did. Fortunately no one else paid Steve's price, but in McGuire's case, it remains possible that McGuire's final orders (over the drop tanks) had helped bring about the loss of Maj Rittmayer when his plane was caught in a high-speed firing pass by the second Japanase pilot (Sukuda) very soon after McGuire bellied in.

I'll probably have to review this controversial mission some more.

The point is being missed here, Dennis. My basis of comparison is not about how good or bad were Fossett and McGuire as pilots. My point is that sometimes human judgement comes up short, but using one event alone to judge someone can be shallow.

Now, if Steve was warned by Decathlon pilots enough about its flying characteristics, and further warned by experienced "stump jumper" Nevada pilots of the precarious winds over there, and chose to ignore them all anyway, then yeah, that was big-time foolish. Or if he knew all that anyway, then also big-time foolish to have punted on the flight plan.

I suppose we can take up Ike next time. ;)

Ed:

Excellent points, Caidin does point out McGuire's desire to best Bong's record before he too was sent home. If your life is on the line, you say screw the mission and do what it takes to survive. If he felt he could fight a nimble fighter like a Frank at low altitude and low speed with drag inducing fuel tanks, then he made a dumb decision that was probably influenced by his desire for combat, and his contempt for his enemy. Pride definitely went before a fall in this case and cost the US two good pilots.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Good catch, Ed, I was waiting to see if someone would take note of the reasonable alternates available in other planes (regarding "emergency egress") if Ike was resolved to make the observation flight.

I don't hold it against Ike to want to fly over and check out the battle zone, just that his means of doing so was more than a bit on the risky side. (If he still had to do it in a fighter, geez, he shoulda used a P-47! :D Nahhhh.....) Again, Marshall wasn't amused.

The 354th FG took it in pride when it was over, of course, giving the two-seater P-51B hack the name "The Stars Look Down".

An added bit of irony was at that time, Gen Montgomery, in his discontent with AEAF chief Leigh-Mallory (contempt mutually shared), felt that L-M should've hopped over the Channel in a Mosquito to visit and talk with him more directly in regards to tactical air operations or learn of the Normandy ground situation more directly. "But he won't do it, the gutless bugger!"

Ed:

Think about it, if Ike buys the farm, who gets the overall command of the allied forces in Europe? Most likely Montgomery with the outside shot at perhaps General Brooke. Marshall while senior was just too far removed from the day to day operations to be the overall commander. With Monty at the helm, you can guarantee that the war would last at least another year. He would advance cautiously and allow the Germans to re-group as he did in Africa. The Russians would have overrun all of Germany if Monty was CinC.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Apologies for going to Wiki for now, Dennis (I recall you're not particularly fond of that as a ref site), I'll have to do better later. Anyway, when read in full, a couple of retractions are needed on my part.....



If a proper accounting (I assume for now it is), then the approach of Sugimoto from head-on wasn't necessarily a "jump" against McGuire's flight.

And per the accounting above, Fukuda's downing of Rittmayer (I read a different account of the approach a couple days earlier) was head-on, not really an ambush either. Thereby it would be unfair to hold Rittmayer's loss too much on McGuire.

Regardless, it was still a poor tactical situation to be in, especially in choosing to keep on the drop tanks, and would have probably been far worse had there been more Japanese fighters flying about, and if those planes got into an advantageous position. Which was a real possibility in the noted situation of cloud cover.

Ed:

It's obvious that both you and Dennis have done a great job in reconstructing a dogfight that took place before all of us were born. Thanks for the details.

[old_pop2000]

Ed:

Excellent points, Caidin does point out McGuire's desire to best Bong's record before he too was sent home. If your life is on the line, you say screw the mission and do what it takes to survive. If he felt he could fight a nimble fighter like a Frank at low altitude and low speed with drag inducing fuel tanks, then he made a dumb decision that was probably influenced by his desire for combat, and his contempt for his enemy. Pride definitely went before a fall in this case and cost the US two good pilots.

Ahem!! If you read Lt. Ed Weaver's flight report of the incident:


At about 10/15 miles west of Fabrica I saw a Zeke ‘52’ coming directly towards us at 500 feet below and 1,000 yards ahead. By the time I radioed this information, the leader had seen the enemy, he was directly underneath us. Major McGuire, followed by his flight, made a diving turn to the left for an attack. The Zeke immediately dived to the left also and came around on the tail of #3 man, Lt. Thropp, who had previously been instructed by his element leader, Major Rittmayer, to change positions with him. The enemy was on the inside of this very tight turn at 300 feet and fired at Lt. Thropp. I radioed that the Zeke was directly behind us, and Major Rittmayer, in #4 position, fired a burst sufficient to make the enemy turn even more tightly and lose Lt. Thropp. That put the Zeke in range and inside of me, in #2 position. I radioed major McGuire that I was being attacked and increased my turn, diving slightly. The enemy stayed with me, but I was now inside and a little below my leader. At this time Major McGuire, attempting to get a shot at my attacker, increased his turn tremendously. His plane snap-rolled to the left and stopped in an inverted position with the nose down about 30°. Because of the attitude of my plane, I then lost sight of him momentarily. A second later I saw the explosion and fire of his crash. The Zeke broke off his attack just before Major McGuire’s crash, and climbed to the North. It is my opinion that the enemy did not at any time change his attack from me to my leader. I believe his crash was caused by his violent attempt to thwart my attacker, although it is possible that the Major was hit by ground fire, which had now begun

As McGuire's wingman, he would be on his leaders port side and up sun from him to guard his tail from any attack from that side. The opponent would be approaching from dead ahead and below. The flight made a gentle left turn as the Zero broke left to circle, that means he went to the starboard side of the finger four formation and underneath. He was able to circle and get on the tail of the #3 man, who had now switched places with the element leader. The second element leader would be up sun and to the starboard side of McGuire. The enemy pilot had pulled lead on # four, who increased his turn, and now the he had lead pursuit on McGuire's #2, Weaver. McGuire heard Weaver's plight, and pull harder into the turn to get lead pursuit on the attacker and stalled the left wing, which would drop causing the right wing to flip over and pushing the nose down. At 300 feet, that was fatal.

Now, it is my opinion that the mistake was not in leaving the tanks on, but in the way McGuire responded to the initial attack. It was standard Navy tactics that when flying in a finger four formation, and responding to a head on pass or a stern attack, for one element to break left, and one element to break right. This puts the attacking aircraft in a dilemma. If he follows the left element, the right circles and gets on his tail, conversely, if he follows the right, the left circles. McGuire's flight followed him, giving them no attacking element. He essentially stayed put his flight into a defensive position with no attacking element which could have forced the opponent to disengage. In the way he responded, the more maneuverable opponent could simply pull more lead and hit another defending aircraft. This was poor tactical judgment and was directly responsible for the leader's death and with the addition of the second KI-84, to the death of the #4, Major Rittmayer. I have enclosed the full report of Lt. Weaver for all.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1122

[old_pop2000]

The P-38's were carrying two 165 gallons metal tanks. The flight took off at 0620. They arrived at Fabrica AF at 0700 and circled for 5 minutes leaving for the western AF of Negros encountering the Zeke 52(wrong airplane) at around 0710-0715, I have calculated that at the rate of 166 GPH, those two tanks would be half empty. You can't drop one, without the other. You switch tanks to maintain the center of balance on the aircraft, so both tanks had approx. 83 gallons left in them. That means they had at least one hour of flying time, at cruising speed still left in the tanks. Combat, as stated, would have eaten that remaining fuel up quickly because SOP would dictate using the fuel from the tanks first. Just more detail for you to better assess McGuire's decision.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ahem!! If you read Lt. Ed Weaver's flight report of the incident:



As McGuire's wingman, he would be on his leaders port side and up sun from him to guard his tail from any attack from that side. The opponent would be approaching from dead ahead and below. The flight made a gentle left turn as the Zero broke left to circle, that means he went to the starboard side of the finger four formation and underneath. He was able to circle and get on the tail of the #3 man, who had now switched places with the element leader. The second element leader would be up sun and to the starboard side of McGuire. The enemy pilot had pulled lead on # four, who increased his turn, and now the he had lead pursuit on McGuire's #2, Weaver. McGuire heard Weaver's plight, and pull harder into the turn to get lead pursuit on the attacker and stalled the left wing, which would drop causing the right wing to flip over and pushing the nose down. At 300 feet, that was fatal.

Now, it is my opinion that the mistake was not in leaving the tanks on, but in the way McGuire responded to the initial attack. It was standard Navy tactics that when flying in a finger four formation, and responding to a head on pass or a stern attack, for one element to break left, and one element to break right. This puts the attacking aircraft in a dilemma. If he follows the left element, the right circles and gets on his tail, conversely, if he follows the right, the left circles. McGuire's flight followed him, giving them no attacking element. He essentially stayed put his flight into a defensive position with no attacking element which could have forced the opponent to disengage. In the way he responded, the more maneuverable opponent could simply pull more lead and hit another defending aircraft. This was poor tactical judgment and was directly responsible for the leader's death and with the addition of the second KI-84, to the death of the #4, Major Rittmayer. I have enclosed the full report of Lt. Weaver for all.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1122

Dennis:

I would say the entire way McGuire handled the engagement was poorly chosen. Now part of it was due to being caught at low altitude with drop tanks. Maybe nobody could have survived that. But by your own analysis he used less than good judgement. Also I would point that the Thatch Weave tactics you describe were USN and you of course know that McGuire was USAAF. Did the Army ever adopt the Weave? Just curious.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

I would say the entire way McGuire handled the engagement was poorly chosen. Now part of it was due to being caught at low altitude with drop tanks. Maybe nobody could have survived that. But by your own analysis he used less than good judgement. Also I would point that the Thatch Weave tactics you describe were USN and you of course know that McGuire was USAAF. Did the Army ever adopt the Weave? Just curious.

In the Thach Weave, the two elements would cross and turn to face the on-coming attack from the rear. The attack that I have described is a standard defensive maneuver for a four plane flight in defending on a head on attack.

To my knowledge, the USAAF did not adopt the Thach weave although it probably had it's own version of it, but will not give credit to Commander Thach for it. Interservice rivalry.

As for McGuire, I do not believe he made an error in not dropping the tanks, however, he did make an error, IMHO, in his choice of maneuvers to defend against the approaching aggressor aircraft. As you state, the low ceiling was a hinderance to the P-38's best combat tactic of staying up at high altitude. Had he done so, he could have sent one element down to attack in a boom and zoom, with the other as top cover. When the second aggressor made his presence known, then he would have altitude superiority on it, then dived to protect the other group. All in all, that is where I believe that Major McGuire made the mistake. Just my opinion.

[old_pop2000]

Some more information for you on theory. The formation that was being flown is termed the finger four or the welded wing. There is a leader and a wingman termed an element. The formation consists of two elements, each with a leader. In World War II, the wingman flew about 600 ft, depending on the turn radius of the plane and its speed and a little down. Sorry I got that wrong earlier, he was above in WWI, but in WWII, he was a little lower. The wingman had a 60 degree cone of maneuvering space he could fly in behind the leader. The 60 degree was measured from a straight line from the center of the leaders aircraft, essentially a 120 degree wedge.

The leaders primary responsibility was navigation, forward observation and attack planning. His secondary responsibility was rear hemisphere visual coverage and engaged maneuvering. The wingman's job was to fly loose and cover the rear defensive area and secondary was forward observation.

The best engaged maneuvering plan would be to execute a defensive split. In this maneuver, one element breaks right and the other breaks left. If the bogey goes left or right, the other element can slide in behind him. If he just continues forward and runs, both elements can latch onto his tail.

Major McGuire chose to lead his whole group into a left hand diving turn as the bogey passed underneath. Unfortunately, the good pilot chose to do a hard left turn and latch onto the tail of #4. The problem with Major McGuire's maneuver was that it was too late to execute that maneuver. He assumed he was offensive and in fact, the bogey's maneuver made him defensive. This, IMHO, was the cause of the loss of the leader and Major Rittmeyer. I also believe that the preceeding change of #3 and #4 might have disrupted the integrity of the formation. Element 2's leader should have broken to the right and this maybe what Major McGuire believed was going to happen. It did not and the result was the bogey was able to latch onto the tail of #4.

Hope this is clearer, probably not without diagrams.

Source: Fighter Combat: tactics and maneuvering by Robert L. Shaw

[Spook046]

As for McGuire, I do not believe he made an error in not dropping the tanks, however, he did make an error, IMHO, in his choice of maneuvers to defend against the approaching aggressor aircraft. As you state, the low ceiling was a hinderance to the P-38's best combat tactic of staying up at high altitude. Had he done so, he could have sent one element down to attack in a boom and zoom, with the other as top cover. When the second aggressor made his presence known, then he would have altitude superiority on it, then dived to protect the other group. All in all, that is where I believe that Major McGuire made the mistake. Just my opinion.

That did cross my mind earlier too, about the alternate of at least "stacking" the flight with a high and low pair so that the high pair had better potential energy for providing cover to the others. How to do it should have depended on the situation, of course, regarding total cloud cover and height, approach speed, and so forth. In effect, adapt to the circumstances.

[old_pop2000]

That did cross my mind earlier too, about the alternate of at least "stacking" the flight with a high and low pair so that the high pair had better potential energy for providing cover to the others. How to do it should have depended on the situation, of course, regarding total cloud cover and height, approach speed, and so forth. In effect, adapt to the circumstances.


It would not be smart to breakup the flight, however, adding another flight would have certainly given them an advantage. It is far better to maintain integrity of the flight to provide you with the range of defensive and offensive maneuvers to use. If you breakup the flight, you reduce the number of maneuvers that can be execute. Meteorological conditions can definitely present major problems in fighter sweeps.

The fighter sweep is a mission whereby a flight flies over selected targets waiting to catch unsuspecting bogeys and shooting them down. It is not long distance mission but a long time mission. Time is important because the longer you can stay aloft, the better chances you have of encountering bogey's. It also gives you the time over target and the ability to change targets as was the case with Major McGuire. When they declared no joy over Fabrica, they headed for one of the other eight fields on Negros. The point here is distance was not a factor in the mission, time over target was the critical factor. This is why the extra fuel was carried. They were also flying over water briefly, and extra fuel is always vital.

[Spook046]

It would not be smart to breakup the flight, however, adding another flight would have certainly given them an advantage. It is far better to maintain integrity of the flight to provide you with the range of defensive and offensive maneuvers to use. If you breakup the flight, you reduce the number of maneuvers that can be execute. Meteorological conditions can definitely present major problems in fighter sweeps.


Then if flight integrity was important, then under the circumstances, preserving energy (by maintaining more altitude or a higher approach speed if possible) was just as important. Going in to pick a fight low, slow and aerodynamically burdened (loss of energy, loss of maneuver, loss of options) showed questionable discretion by even the most generous measure.



The fighter sweep is a mission whereby a flight flies over selected targets waiting to catch unsuspecting bogeys and shooting them down. It is not long distance mission but a long time mission. Time is important because the longer you can stay aloft, the better chances you have of encountering bogey's. It also gives you the time over target and the ability to change targets as was the case with Major McGuire. When they declared no joy over Fabrica, they headed for one of the other eight fields on Negros. The point here is distance was not a factor in the mission, time over target was the critical factor.

That's why I noted earlier that endurance (not range) was at work here, but the mission plan obviously had to lay out that you don't stretch onwards where you feel compelled to keep on the tanks just to get home.

Had McGuire's flight run into a larger number of bogeys, all the discussions about the benefits of keeping on the fuel tanks are academic, because in all likelihood they'd have punched off the tanks in a hearbeat. But McGuire opted to keep on the tanks on the assumption that the one bogey was easy meat. But he (Sugimoto) was not, so no matter how one cuts or parses it, it was misjudging the opposition.



This is why the extra fuel was carried. They were also flying over water briefly, and extra fuel is always vital.

Again, most of Negros is within 200 km of Dulag, well within range of the P-38's internal fuel load. There was simply no compelling basis that mandated to keep on the tanks once the first Japanese fighter was sighted. Because again, under that given environment, it could not be assumed with certainty that there were no other enemy planes that could show up. As it turned out, one other did, and had there been more, the whole flight of McGuire's might have gotten nailed.

Keeping on the tanks was only critical if circumstances required for the flight to maintain the intended mission endurance (like a bomber escort rendevous), but that simply wasn't the case here.

(On a trivia note, I'm actually acquainted with the waters between Leyte, Cebu and Negros, with family in Cebu.)

[old_pop2000]

Then if flight integrity was important, then under the circumstances, preserving energy (by maintaining more altitude or a higher approach speed if possible) was just as important.

Had McGuire's flight run into a larger number of bogeys, all the discussions about the benefits of keeping on the fuel tanks are academic, because in all likelihood they'd have punched off the tanks in a hearbeat. But McGuire opted to keep on the tanks on the assumption that the one bogey was easy meat. But he (Sugimoto) was not, so no matter how one cuts or parses it, it was misjudging the opposition.

Again, most of Negros is within 200 km of Dulag, well within range of the P-38's internal fuel load. There was simply no compelling basis that mandated to keep on the tanks once the first Japanese fighter was sighted. Because again, under that given environment, it could not be assumed with certainty that there were no other enemy planes that could show up. As it turned out, one other did, and had there been more, the whole flight of McGuire's might have gotten nailed.



1. The purpose of the sweep was to initiate combat by making your presence known. Heading to a lower altitude was not a mistake, it was simply a matter of a mission requirement. There was also the issue of navigation. McGuire has to get a visual fix on his target or he might fly past and out to sea. Heading to a lower altitude was a requirement. No mistake about it.

2. McGuire had 38 kills and was a flight leader. He was fully aware of the capability of the Ki-43-III and the KI-84, pilot exclusive. He would not assume there was a poor pilot in the cockpit. As I said, we don't know what his thought was in turning left with the whole flight. He might have expected the other element to break right. Pilots are a cocky bunch, and have supreme confidence in their own abilities, but also realize the danger of overconfidence, this is the reason why they are meticulous and precise about how they fly. The loss of McGuire in a sudden fashion, disrupted the flight integrity and probably caused the death of Rittmeyer. The bogey's simply took advantage of the loss of leadership.

3. Again, you are not understanding that flight time is more important than range. Stop fixating on range to target. Under the circumstances of RPM, GPH and TAS, the flight had only 2.1 hours of flight time on internal fuel. Half an hour of that was used getting to Fabrica and another 5 minutes circling. If we assume 30 minutes back, then that is only 1 hour of actual combat time for the mission. If we assume a 10% reserve for headwinds etc. then we are cutting it pretty close. However, we know they were heading to the other eight fields, so again, the distance wasn't important, the time in the air was. The two fuel tanks gave them an additional 2 hours of flight time.

4. I say again, the tanks were not the issue, but the choice of engagement manuever was important. I believe the mistake was simply not realizing he was defensive, not offensive which would have changed his choice of maneuver.

It appears you are disregarding all the data and information. You are just reiterating what ever you are reading, over and over. If you don't believe my data and ideas, fine. But until you come up with some factual, quantified data, let's just forget this discussion.

Thanks

[Ed Rotondaro]

Then if flight integrity was important, then under the circumstances, preserving energy (by maintaining more altitude or a higher approach speed if possible) was just as important. Going in to pick a fight low, slow and aerodynamically burdened (loss of energy, loss of maneuver, loss of options) showed questionable discretion by even the most generous measure.



That's why I noted earlier that endurance (not range) was at work here, but the mission plan obviously had to lay out that you don't stretch onwards where you feel compelled to keep on the tanks just to get home.

Had McGuire's flight run into a larger number of bogeys, all the discussions about the benefits of keeping on the fuel tanks are academic, because in all likelihood they'd have punched off the tanks in a hearbeat. But McGuire opted to keep on the tanks on the assumption that the one bogey was easy meat. But he (Sugimoto) was not, so no matter how one cuts or parses it, it was misjudging the opposition.



Again, most of Negros is within 200 km of Dulag, well within range of the P-38's internal fuel load. There was simply no compelling basis that mandated to keep on the tanks once the first Japanese fighter was sighted. Because again, under that given environment, it could not be assumed with certainty that there were no other enemy planes that could show up. As it turned out, one other did, and had there been more, the whole flight of McGuire's might have gotten nailed.

Keeping on the tanks was only critical if circumstances required for the flight to maintain the intended mission endurance (like a bomber escort rendevous), but that simply wasn't the case here.

(On a trivia note, I'm actually acquainted with the waters between Leyte, Cebu and Negros, with family in Cebu.)


Ed:

I agree. McGuire was a great pilot but he let his desire to outscore Richard Bong make him forget his own rules. Now maybe being jumped by crack pilots meant he was dead meat, but his whole approach was to get some easy kills. That is arrongance and it cost him and another good pilot their lives. Thanks for the details on the Philippino guerillas getting the Japanese pilot. No nation ever fought harder for the US than the Philippinos. And they paid a brutal price for their courage. Let's never forget them.

[Spook046]

We're simply going to have to agree to disagree over McGuire's judgement regarding his last combat, Dennis, because through all the exchange, my views are unchanged that on this fatal occasion, on several counts McGuire's discretion and decisions in that engagement came up short.

However, all said and done, this whole discussion is till missing a very fundamental point. In fact, it's missing the main point and getting lost in the weeds.

Earlier you said that Fossett, with the poor judgement showed in his last flight, will be remembered mainly for that. Or that Amelia Earhart will be remembered mainly for her compounded mistakes of her last flight.

By that line of argument, then McGuire should be remembered primarily for the poor judgement of his last mission.

For all three, that is not the case for me.

McGuire, in his ground behavior, was a bit of a "grandstander" too, and was disliked by many fellow pilots in the 475th FG. I've read multiple accounts holding that when Charles Lindbergh, as a "tech representative" for Lockheed, was bunked with McGuire, the latter had a tendency to "high-ride" Lindy as if he was some servant.

In the 1970's, IIRC I read from Flying magazine this recollection from a 475th veteran which closed out a two-part history of Tommy McGuire:



"McGuire had many enemies, and I would count among those who just didn't like him too because so often he was a jerk on the ground. However, there is one other thing about him that should be remembered, in that he was also as fair-minded a person as I've ever met regarding combat operations."


By this, I assume the 475th veteran was allowing that McGuire could recognize other talent in the group and work to enhance group operations rather than just be in it for himself alone.

And another thing to remember about McGuire was his undeniable courage. As what happened once in 1943:



McGuire's career nearly came to an end on 17 October 1943 when he scrambled from Dubodura, New Guinea to intercept approaching Japanese bombers being escorted by Zero fighters over Oro Bay, New Guinea. During the ensuing dogfight McGuire observed at least seven Japanese Zero fighters attacking a lone P-38 that was trailing smoke. Without hesitation McGuire dove into the seven enemy fighters and quickly shot down three. Unfortunately the remaining four Zeros were able to attack McGuire and severely damage his aircraft. With his controls shot out McGuire decided to bail out but as he exited the aircraft he found his parachute harness had snagged on something in the cockpit. From 12,000 ft to 5,000 ft McGuire struggled to free himself from the stricken fighter. Finally he was able to free himself and deploy his parachute only 1,000 ft from certain death. Fortunately he landed safely in the water and was rescued by a PT boat. He suffered a 7.7 mm bullet wound to his wrist and numerous other injuries including some broken ribs. He spent six weeks in the hospital before he returned to his unit.


Regardless of what all happened the last mission, McGuire was still a courageous and highly proficient fighter pilot that contributed much to the 475th FG's overall success. He well earned the Medal of Honor given to him. That he was two kills short of Richard Bong's USAAF record score says nothing meaningful by itself in comparing the two, as McGuire was quite likely the more skilful of the two.

Let all that be remembered of Tommy McGuire too, warts and all.

THAT is the point.

[Spook046]

3. Again, you are not understanding that flight time is more important than range. Stop fixating on range to target.

I haven't fixated, I only cited it only as a frame of reference because I fully understand -- and understood all along -- that range and endurance do not mean the same thing. I noted that twice earlier.

[old_pop2000]

We're simply going to have to agree to disagree over McGuire's judgement regarding his last combat, Dennis, because through all the exchange, my views are unchanged that on this fatal occasion, on several counts McGuire's discretion and decisions in that engagement came up short.

However, all said and done, this whole discussion is till missing a very fundamental point. In fact, it's missing the main point and getting lost in the weeds.

Earlier you said that Fossett, with the poor judgement showed in his last flight, will be remembered mainly for that. Or that Amelia Earhart will be remembered mainly for her compounded mistakes of her last flight.

By that line of argument, then McGuire should be remembered primarily for the poor judgement of his last mission.

For all three, that is not the case for me.


And another thing to remember about McGuire was his undeniable courage. As what happened once in 1943:

Regardless of what all happened the last mission, McGuire was still a courageous and highly proficient fighter pilot that contributed much to the 475th FG's overall success. That he was two kills short of Richard Bong's USAAF record score says nothing meaningful in comparing the two, as McGuire was quite likely the more skilful of the two.

Let all that be remembered of Tommy McGuire too, warts and all.

THAT is the point.

You misunderstand, I am simply observing that history will only remember their last mistakes or foolish acts, I believe that the sum total of a person's life is his or her's legacy. It is just a shame that those three will have an historical legacy that is always clouded by their disappearance or crashes.

Whether Major McGuire was like or disliked is irrelevent. Envy can do many things to people. McGuire was fine pilot and a skilled tactician besides being a great leader. Many of those men who disliked him, were kept alive by his judgement and skill over the years in the SW Pacific. If glory hunting was the mission goal and it was approved, so be it. It still would have contributed to the war effort.

As for the other two, it is simply a stated fact, that all you hear about in relation to Amelia Earhart is her mistakes on her last flight. Shame, because she actually contributed much to women in aviation. But that is the way history works.

Same goes for Steve Fossett, unfortunately, his accomplishments will get lost in the record books and the only thing remembered is his last flight.

Those are the facts of history. I am a pragmatist by nature. I am not very sentimental, and believe in the facts and quantifiable data. I believe in assessing an event in history based on the facts that are available.

[old_pop2000]

I haven't fixated, I only cited it only as a frame of reference because I fully understand -- and understood all along -- that range and endurance do not mean the same thing. I noted that twice earlier.

Ok, that's fine. I understand. I just felt you were fixating on the range because it was mentioned so many times. It was the endurance that was important. Great, then on that, we have some agreement, of sorts.

[Spook046]

As for the other two, it is simply a stated fact, that all you hear about in relation to Amelia Earhart is her mistakes on her last flight. Shame, because she actually contributed much to women in aviation. But that is the way history works.

Same goes for Steve Fossett, unfortunately, his accomplishments will get lost in the record books and the only thing remembered is his last flight.

Those are the facts of history. I am a pragmatist by nature. I am not very sentimental, and believe in the facts and quantifiable data. I believe in assessing an event in history based on the facts that are available.

Yes, very much agreed.

[old_pop2000]

Well, they have found something, but what and how remains to be seen.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/01/fossett.discovery/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

FYI - It is approximately 102 miles from Minden, Nevada where Fossett departed to the approximate location of Mammoth Lakes. Unknown, exactly where the stuff was found. It would have been possible to reach that with the Bellanca.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Well, they have found something, but what and how remains to be seen.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/01/fossett.discovery/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

FYI - It is approximately 102 miles from Minden, Nevada where Fossett departed to the approximate location of Mammoth Lakes. Unknown, exactly where the stuff was found. It would have been possible to reach that with the Bellanca.

Dennis:

Yeah I was going to post this, but you beat me to it sir. Is the wreckage nearby or did some animal drag the stuff that far? Story's not over yet I guess.

[old_pop2000]

Found at Last.....Maybe


http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/02/steve.fossett.search/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

[Ed Rotondaro]

Found at Last.....Maybe


http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/02/steve.fossett.search/index.html?eref=rss_topstories


Dennis:

Assuming this is the wreckage, will they be able to determine the cause of the crash?

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Assuming this is the wreckage, will they be able to determine the cause of the crash?

Yes, they will be able to do forensics and the NTSB will be able to examine the debris of the crash. They will examine the engine to see if it was running at the time of the crash by examining the way the propellor is bent, and the status of the engine. They will examine the instruments which will be stuck at the position they were at, after the crash. They might not be able to be definitive unless something is glaring, but they can use the process of elimination.

As far as the body, it's problematic whether there's enough of Fossett left to do any real forensics, but through the position of the body etc, they might be able to tell whether it was a controlled landing or he simply ran into the ground.

[old_pop2000]

Well, it appears they have found the crash and the plane is Steve Fossett's. Probably by the tail number, that will give them a registration item to check.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/02/steve.fossett.search/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

[Ed Rotondaro]

Well, it appears they have found the crash and the plane is Steve Fossett's. Probably by the tail number, that will give them a registration item to check.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/02/steve.fossett.search/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Dennis:

Well now some forensic pathologist has to determine if there are any remains. That's a job I wouldn't want. Funny they found the plane by accident despite all the organized searches. Go figure?

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Well now some forensic pathologist has to determine if there are any remains. That's a job I wouldn't want. Funny they found the plane by accident despite all the organized searches. Go figure?

Remember back, last year when we started this. I told all of you, that he would be found by accident.

Just another note: I've looked at Google Earth to examine the terrain where the wreck was found. It is in the Inyo Forest of the Sierra Nevada's somewhere around 10000 feet. The wreckage looks like it is near a mountain lake in a valley. If he flew south from Minden to search for a proposed site, then finding nothing, turned westward, he would have gone right through that area. I suspect, but this is conjecture, that there were clouds in the area along with fog and mist at that altitude, he might have just flow straight into the ground due to visibility or was caught in a strong down draft which pushed the plane into the ground. The Bellanca is not really designed to withstand that sort of strong down draft due to the power to weight. By examining the fuel tanks, they might be able to see if he encountered strong headwinds and ran out of fuel. Lots of scenarios. As I have continually stated, with the type of aircraft and no survival equipment, save a water bottle, he did not belong in the Inyo Mountains.

The reason the articles were found away from the site, is because either the little animals dragged the body away for lunch or he was thrown from the plane upon impact, and then the little animals dragged him away.

[old_pop2000]

Information from the Madera County Sheriff is that the plane that was found, was Steve Fossett's and he did fly straight into a mountain. Which is the scenario that I have always thought and stated, was the most likely one. No remains have yet been found, but the authorities have stated that no one could have survived the crash.


The plane apparently crashed head-on into the side of a mountain, and the damage was "so severe I doubt someone would've walked away from it," the sheriff said.

Mountains, anytime of the year, are the most treacherous areas to fly in, especially with single engined aircraft that don't have pressurized cabins. You have to stay below 10,000 feet or get anoxia. This puts you at risk to hit something real hard and unmoveable, like mountains.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Information from the Madera County Sheriff is that the plane that was found, was Steve Fossett's and he did fly straight into a mountain. Which is the scenario that I have always thought and stated, was the most likely one. No remains have yet been found, but the authorities have stated that no one could have survived the crash.



Mountains, anytime of the year, are the most treacherous areas to fly in, especially with single engined aircraft that don't have pressurized cabins. You have to stay below 10,000 feet or get anoxia. This puts you at risk to hit something real hard and unmoveable, like mountains.


Dennis:

Well you were correct about how he would be found. My question, would a plane like that have had radar? If so, would it have prevented him from flying into a mountain?

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Well you were correct about how he would be found. My question, would a plane like that have had radar? If so, would it have prevented him from flying into a mountain?

Absolutely not, it was a small, single engine Bellanca about the size of a Piper Cub. You are lucky if you have a UHF radio and VOR system.

Link to Wikipedia article on the Bellanca and photos to give you a reference. Attached image is the crash site photo of Steve Fossett's plane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Champion_Decathlon

Notice the ceiling on the aircraft is 15,800 ft. The Inyo mountains can average 10,000 ft. Sounds like he had plenty of altitude left but that is not true. Anoxia can start occurring at 8400 feet or above. The service ceiling is only the ceiling the engine can still operate, however, the cold and lack of oxygen will kill the pilot long before he reaches that point. It was confirmed that the wreckage was found at 10,000 ft. I suspect, based on that, Steve Fossett might have suffered from anoxia, fell asleep possibly and slammed headlong into the mountain. That is a very real, unprovable scenario.

[old_pop2000]

Here is what was said, within two weeks after he went missing.


11 September 2007 - Nevada, USA - As the Civil Air Patrol, National Guard, sheriffs' departments and volunteer fleets flying from from Minden-Tahoe and the Flying M Ranch all continue the search for the missing adventurer into a second week, the ****** Mechanical Turk / Google Earth web-based image analysis project has been operational since the weekend and continues to receive and sift leads, filtering and analyzing possible sitings and passing them through to members of the search teams click here to take part.

It is now believed that Steve Fossett was unlikely to have ventured far afield (such as crossing the Sierra Nevada range), but that he was more likely to have been on a local pleasure flight - and that he probably was not surveying sites for the upcoming landspeed record project.
Based on Steve's known movements, plans and the aircraft's capabilities, the search is now primarily focused on a 30 - 50 mile radius of the ranch, with some members of the search team convinced he is even closer.

The aircraft's last confirmed position on Monday (3 September) at approximately 10:30 A.M. local time showed Steve west of Powell Canyon (south of Walker Lake and southwest of Hawthorne), proceeding east towards the canyon. This location is less than 30 miles SE from his point of departure / expected arrival. Steve was expected to return to the ranch around 11:00 - 11:30 AM. Although the Super Decathlon is capable of good performance at sea level, the predicted aircraft speed and climb rate must be adjusted down for the density altitude of this area in summer


Well, so much for theories. It never occurred to anyone that that idiot would take that plane into the Sierra Nevada Mountains. His last known position was 60 miles NE of where the crash site was found. His last heading was EAST into the canyon yet he was found SW in the Inyo Mountains.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Absolutely not, it was a small, single engine Bellanca about the size of a Piper Cub. You are lucky if you have a UHF radio and VOR system.

Link to Wikipedia article on the Bellanca and photos to give you a reference. Attached image is the crash site photo of Steve Fossett's plane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Champion_Decathlon

Notice the ceiling on the aircraft is 15,800 ft. The Inyo mountains can average 10,000 ft. Sounds like he had plenty of altitude left but that is not true. Anoxia can start occurring at 8400 feet or above. The service ceiling is only the ceiling the engine can still operate, however, the cold and lack of oxygen will kill the pilot long before he reaches that point. It was confirmed that the wreckage was found at 10,000 ft. I suspect, based on that, Steve Fossett might have suffered from anoxia, fell asleep possibly and slammed headlong into the mountain. That is a very real, unprovable scenario.

Dennis:

I'm gathering that this aircraft did not have a pressurized cockpit and that oxygen would have been needed at that altitude?

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

I'm gathering that this aircraft did not have a pressurized cockpit and that oxygen would have been needed at that altitude?

It did not have a pressurized cockpit and whether he would have needed it depends on his age. He was 63 years old, so yes, above 8400 feet, oxygen is recommended.

[Ed Rotondaro]

It did not have a pressurized cockpit and whether he would have needed it depends on his age. He was 63 years old, so yes, above 8400 feet, oxygen is recommended.

Dennis:

Sounds like he made a lot of bad decisions based on his own belief of his flying skills. What's the expression? There are old pilots and there bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots. Or perhaps Pride goeth before a fall.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Sounds like he made a lot of bad decisions based on his own belief of his flying skills. What's the expression? There are old pilots and there bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots. Or perhaps Pride goeth before a fall.

Ed:
He certainly did make a lot of bad decisions, more than enough to get himself killed. I've enclosed a page about the aircraft. Just note under avionics, that he would have had a broadband transmitter and an omnidirectional navigation system. Neither of which would have been effective in those mountains.

http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/decath/sdprice.htm

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed:
He certainly did make a lot of bad decisions, more than enough to get himself killed. I've enclosed a page about the aircraft. Just note under avionics, that he would have had a broadband transmitter and an omnidirectional navigation system. Neither of which would have been effective in those mountains.

http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/decath/sdprice.htm

Dennis:

Now that was interesting. The plane was less expensive than I imagined, but I can see that as you add to the avionics, the price shoots up. I've got a radar question, but I'll start another thread on that. Thanks.

[old_pop2000]

OOPS!! The little animals missed some.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/02/steve.fossett.search/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

[Warship NWS]

OOPS!! The little animals missed some.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/02/steve.fossett.search/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Ok.. lets let the guy RIP.

Thanks.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ok.. lets let the guy RIP.

Thanks.

Chris:

Yeah it was getting grisly.

[old_pop2000]

Chris:

Yeah it was getting grisly.


Let's not forget the survivors of this unnecessary tragedy-the immediate family. No matter what Steve Fossett accomplished in aviation or in stock trading, it is now overshadowed by the last dumb thing he did. His accomplishments, unfortunately, will be overshadowed by this. His family is left holding the bag, to deal with the public perception. I feel for the family of these kinds of heroes. Let's not grieve for Steve Fossett, but have sympathy and compassion for his widow and family. RIP

[Ed Rotondaro]

Let's not forget the survivors of this unnecessary tragedy-the immediate family. No matter what Steve Fossett accomplished in aviation or in stock trading, it is now overshadowed by the last dumb thing he did. His accomplishments, unfortunately, will be overshadowed by this. His family is left holding the bag, to deal with the public perception. I feel for the family of these kinds of heroes. Let's not grieve for Steve Fossett, but have sympathy and compassion for his widow and family. RIP

Dennis:

Agreed. It looks like the court made the right decision when they declared him legally deceased. Hoepfully the family gets some closure (what an overworked term).

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Agreed. It looks like the court made the right decision when they declared him legally deceased. Hoepfully the family gets some closure (what an overworked term).

Yes, I agree that it is an overworked term. Hopefully the media will now let the NTSB do its job and then let's put this unfortunate incident behind us. His family deserves that, at least. It's time to close this thread. He has been found, he will be buried and the NTSB will attempt to determine what went wrong and that's that.

Thanks.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Yes, I agree that it is an overworked term. Hopefully the media will now let the NTSB do its job and then let's put this unfortunate incident behind us. His family deserves that, at least. It's time to close this thread. He has been found, he will be buried and the NTSB will attempt to determine what went wrong and that's that.

Thanks.

Dennis:

I agree completely.

[john964]

Bone fragments discovered near Steve Fossetts crash sight were positivly identified as Fossetts by DNA. The remaines had shown signs of animal bites.

[old_pop2000]

Bone fragments discovered near Steve Fossetts crash sight were positivly identified as Fossetts by DNA. The remaines had shown signs of animal bites.

Yes, I saw that.

Thanks for posting, because I did not want to bring it up.;)

[djcyclone]

Bone fragments discovered near Steve Fossetts crash sight were positivly identified as Fossetts by DNA. The remaines had shown signs of animal bites.

God I do hope that he died in the crash, and did not have to be killed by an animal. That would be a truely horifying death, to be wounded and not be able to fight back.

Hopefully he was lucky enough to just die on impact.

Harsh words I know, but better than the alternative.

[old_pop2000]

God I do hope that he died in the crash, and did not have to be killed by an animal. That would be a truely horifying death, to be wounded and not be able to fight back.

Hopefully he was lucky enough to just die on impact.

Harsh words I know, but better than the alternative.

He probably hit that mountain going around 160-180 knts. I believe that we can assume he died on impact since he flew straight into the mountain at the 13000 ft. level and the engine was found 300 feet away. A nasty crash. Of course, there is always the possibility that he had a heart attack and died long before he hit the mountain.

Anyway, it is all academic now. We have to wait for the NTSB final results. But we already know them. He flew into a mountain, at 13000 ft. Case closed.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Yes, I saw that.

Thanks for posting, because I did not want to bring it up.;)

Dennis:

Closure perhaps at last?

[Ed Rotondaro]

He probably hit that mountain going around 160-180 knts. I believe that we can assume he died on impact since he flew straight into the mountain at the 13000 ft. level and the engine was found 300 feet away. A nasty crash. Of course, there is always the possibility that he had a heart attack and died long before he hit the mountain.

Anyway, it is all academic now. We have to wait for the NTSB final results. But we already know them. He flew into a mountain, at 13000 ft. Case closed.

Dennis:

Did it look like the plane had burned on impact? I couldn't see anything in the debris to indicate that a fire occurred after the crash.

[old_pop2000]

The NTSB has stated, finally, that the Fossett crash was a result of strong downward currents of air along with thin air and the mountainous terrain. His plane was found at 10000 feet. Anything above 7-8000 feet can bring on lack of oxygen.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090709/ap_on_re_us/us_fossett_search

So, the final chapter is written.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The NTSB has stated, finally, that the Fossett crash was a result of strong downward currents of air along with thin air and the mountainous terrain. His plane was found at 10000 feet. Anything above 7-8000 feet can bring on lack of oxygen.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090709/ap_on_re_us/us_fossett_search

So, the final chapter is written.

Dennis:

So do we have closure I guess?:(

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

So do we have closure I guess?:(

Sadly, yes we do. Most likely, this is the best crash investigators can give us, with the available information. There are a number of plausible causes for the accident, with high shear winds being the most likely answer. Lack of oxygen probably contributed, but there is no way to confirm. Bottom line is pilot error. The decision to fly into that region, knowing the hazards was entirely his, and his alone.

With My Compliments