One fact that I didn’t miss is that you are either ignorant, obtuse or missing some essential fluids in your medulla oblongata.

 

I tend to agree the whole thing seems fishy. Do you think it could have been a "hit" on him related to the business lawsuit? Perhaps someone came in undetected and damaged the airplane before he went flying. Could have cut fuel lines or electrical work. Could have been one of the insiders who took him out.

 

That's ridiculous.

You'd need a professional killer with knowledge of airplane systems.

Sabotaging the engine typically won't kill the occupants. It might, but not usually.

That would probably leave plenty of evidence for the homicide investigation.

Whole lot easier to just shoot the guy, take his wallet, and make it look like a robbery. The local-yokels would quickly lose interest. As opposed to inviting multiple federal agencies to the investigation.

 

Or……

He was flying an 80 ish year old airplane that’s powered by an Allison V-12 which even when new wasn’t the most reliable engine. He had an engine failure shortly after takeoff. He had limited options available and put it down where he could, unfortunately something went wrong during that forced landing. I’d be interested to know if he was wearing a helmet Without a helmet your chances of survival go way down in a forced off field landing.

There is nothing “fishy” about an engine failure on take off. Especially not with these old V-12’s and radials. I had an R-1340 on a 1943 SNJ-4 completely seize up on me, with no warning, just after lift off. I flew a B-25 for a couple of seasons hauling paying passengers. I don’t any longer simply due to the fact that the airplane has a couple R-2600’s on it, an engine that is going to fail at some point and the B-25 has a very bad coffin corner on take off between lift off and VMCA. It’s only a matter of time before something bad is going to happen.

When I was a kid my dad owned an A-36 Apache which is also powered by an Allison V-12. That engine requires constant attention and even with proper care it sometimes just quits. When you fly these old warbirds you’ve got to count on the fact that it’s when not IF you’re going to have an engine failure.

 

Well said, Airhoss. Old, not very reliable engines. Stuff happens.

 

https://www.kpax.com/man-dies-in-wwi...milton-airport

I think thirty or so of the engine failures I've experienced have been R-2600's.

Allison's, too (but not piston ones).

An inherent problem throughout the war with the Allison V-1710 was supercharger-related, so much so that the first introduction of the P-38 late in the war on a Berlin escort raid saw 50% of the aircraft drop out with engine problems. I have a picture somewhere of Lefty Gardner's P38 that I snapped from a B25, as one engine blew, just off our right wing, many years ago. The P-40 was a conundrum; it was chosen as a low altitude airplane with an engine designed to produce its power at higher altitudes (in an airframe not really suited for higher altitudes). Most Allisons used single-stage exhuast-driven blowers, producing less power on takeoff, and not a combination produced by Allison (but aftermarket by GE, et al). Allison engines lacked an intercooler, further limiting the amount of manifold pressure, and were subject to detonation issues if pushed. 70+ year old engines pushing high pressures for takeoff make for failure potentials in valves, pistons, rods, and other components. Segmented manifold tubes are subject to failure, as are the superchargers, which are optimum for flight above 15,000, but not for lower altitude. While by the war's end, most aircraft used 2-stage turbochargers and superchargers (and combinations), such was not the case on the Allison's (one of the reasons that many preferred the Merlins), and certainly not on the P40.

That big mouth, often emblazoned with the AVG's shark mouth, is to handle the three radiators for the liquid cooled engine. It got hot and it got pushed hard to make power. Three partially for redundancy, but primarily just for adequate cooling. A major vulnerability, too.

Even the R-2600, mentioned previously, used a two-stage supercharger (though we hard-wired ours to the low blower position, and even using lower manifold pressure with no anti-detonation fluid for takeoff) still experienced a number of lifted heads and other associated issues. A key issue with Allison was that to make adequate power, the engine had to be pushed harder, which mean it was working harder to produce the same power as Merlin. A telling difference for the two is illustrated in the P51, which was increased by seven inches with the Merlin installation, not for engine size, but to handle the xtra room for the intercooler and the two-stage turbocharger.

Having said all that, Ehlen's P40 was an E model, or purported to be an E-model, but was a combination of frames put together, and bore the bureau number of other aircraft, later changed to a unique number incorporating other aircraft's ID. It was damaged in a landing mishap and rebuilt some time ago. It was a Warhawk 1. Some E model and beginning with the F, used Merlin engines. Ehlen's did not.

Some commented that the aircraft looked intact and that it should have been a survivable forced landing. The damage is extensive, including destruction right through the cockpit, which burned. It wasn't survivable. It doesn't look remotely survivable.

I make no speculation as to the cause of this mishap, because I don't do that. The observations above about the unreliability (by modern standards) of older equipment are quite accurate. I've had a LOT of engine failures in older equipment; the clueless and uneducated are prone to say it's from flying bad equipment. It's not. Those who think so simply express a gross ignorance of the heritage of aviation. There were types flown during the second world war that killed airmen more in training than in combat. A number of aircraft in that era were inherently unreliable, prone to catching fire in flight (I've found the bombay literally filling with avgas, adjacent to sparking inverters, in flight), to expander tube brakes that routinely faded as they warmed up, to liquid cooled engines that overheated extremely rapidly with coolant loss, to the normal and routine engine oil consumption of 3-7 gallons per hour or more...things that most who have no experience with older aircraft wouldn't know.

Why take off with the canopy rolled back, instead of closed? Because it's a prudent preparation for an emergency egress when one goes down after takeoff.

These aircraft weren't grossly overpowered. The engines worked extremely hard to produce the scant 1,000 hp that they did. The P40 was one of the highest-production aircraft of the second world war, and it did have success, largely due to it's numbers, but also had a horrible loss rate, and it's successes were in spite of it's limitations, not because of its spectacular performance. It lacked climb and the performance to match most contemporary tactical aircraft; it's success was the result of pilots capitalizing on the P40's few advantages (better dive speed, stronger wing--five spars, etc). It's also well to remember that these airplanes are well outside their life expectancy. They were never designed for the long term. Mishaps like this, loss of both pilot and aircraft, are sad moments. Aside from the obvious tragic loss of Mr. Ehlen, there were only 14 P40's remaining in the US. I know the feeling of heading downhill after takeoff in a single engine airplane, all too well. It sucks. Off field, the outcome is not guaranteed, but it's something one accepts by strapping in at the outset. It's something we all accept by pushing the power up at the start of the flight; pick up one end of the stick, we pick up the other, whatever it may be.

Let's not start calling it suicide without any basis in fact. There's nothing about the image above that would suggest suicide. The aircraft was landed flat, and care was take in doing so, else there would have been fuel tank rupture. If it was a suicide attempt, it was a poor effort; clearly the picture shows an aircraft put down in a forced landing with some skill. It was landed, not crashed. The end result, a fatality, has no outward indication of any effort to sabotage or cause greater damage. Have those making such wild, unsubstantiated speculative charges, ever made an off-field forced landing? No information is presently given. It's unprofessional to speculate in absence of fact, and certainly unfair to the pilot, who very well may have done everything right.

 

I'm just fascinated by the scope of the feds case against this guy. From the US Attorney's office press release, Ehlen had a judgement against him for $487 million, due to "64,575 false claims submitted to Medicare due to the Defendants’ conduct, which resulted in $43,694,641.71 in damages to Medicare."

Ehlen was apparently providing kickbacks to physicians to use products from his medical distribution company (Precision Lens), specifically items used in cataract surgeries. Kickbacks were in the form of high-end trips for physicians, (skiing, golf, hunting, etc), amongst other things.

65k claims resulting in $44 million in damages to Medicare works out to a little less than $700 a claim. Everything associated with medical care in the US seems to be awash in dubious charges, so interesting that the feds were able to pin such a high number of small claims on one man.

The press release from the feds also mentions related cases that had previously been settled, one for $3 million and one for $12 million. Ehlen's $487 million judgment comes after almost a decade of litigation. I'm no legal expert, but my understanding is that when the feds come after you, if you roll over and take it, you might be able to fiscally recover. If you chose to "fight city hall," they'll throw everything at you and see what sticks. Seems like in this case maybe Ehlen tried to fight, and lost. Would be interested to hear more about the background of this case, and what drove Ehlen to fight for so long.

 

If a guy wants to play with Warbirds he’s got to make his big bucks somehow…

 

Yes they do. So unless there’s an insurance angle or something like it, why, if you wanted to smoke yourself in style, would one not try to make a better show of it? The thing broke/crashed or it’s a gift to heirs. Gotta be on 48 hrs anytime now.

 

I’ve been doing some more reading into this. It seems that there were reports of someone singing on the frequency during the crash. The song was “Sweet Home Alabama”. There seems to be a thought that this was a suicide and the pilot was singing this. Was he from Alabama? It would make sense with the “Lord I’m coming home to you” verse.

Seems a bit far fetched to me.