BBMF Spit - Emergency Landing?

[Mandator]

The Beeb has the following:

BBC News - Spitfire makes emergency landing in Lincolnshire (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/8679033.stm)


North runway at Cranwell and gear problems? Cranwell North is a grass airfield, presumably ideal if there is a risk of gear collapse, so good call. The report says the aircraft landed safely.

Edit: Found the following comments on another forum:

Spitfire, serial MK356, had problems today with
undercarriage/hydraulics. It was in the circuit at RAF Coningsby for a
lengthy period with the Pilot trying to sort out the problem. Last heard
on the scanner attempting a landing on the grass at RAF Cranwell
North due to the possibility of undercarriage collapsing. Sounded like a
successful landing on the scanner.

She landed safely on the north airfield and was later taxied across to a
hardstand parking spot, presumably to await BBMF techs arriving to
assess the undercarriage.

[TEEEJ]

The Spitfire was serial MK356 (Mk LFIXe).

Battle of Britain Memorial Flight - Spitfire MK356 (Mk LFIXe) (http://www.raf.mod.uk/bbmf/theaircraft/spitfiremk356.cfm)

Well done to all involved during this emergency. :ok: I witnessed the events at RAF Coningsby and followed the communications. The team work was outstanding as all options were run through to resolve the problem.

TJ

[Geehovah]

Glad it worked out OK. Those aircraft are priceless but looked after by the most dedicated team in the RAF.

[Wander00]

Well done to all concerned. Delighted the pilot is OK

[A and C]

Are we sure that going for a grass runway is the best option in the event of a gear problem?

I ask this because aircraft seem to slide when landed gear up on tarmac but when landed on grass the bottom of the aircraft diggs into the turf and this rolls the skin resulting in more dammage to the frames.

I would think that using a grass runway in this case would be because the Spitfire has been shown to slide well on the radiators thus saving the belly of the aircraft.

May be some of the old boys on this forum would like to comment, they would have seen more than a few Spit gear up landings!

[RedhillPhil]

Hmmm, it seems to have a history of belly landings.

[mark25787]

A and C - don't forget it's the condition of the man flying the plane which is the most important, not the plane itself. Whilst we are short of Spitties, the life of the man at the controls is more valuable!
Well done to all involved :ok:

[dakkg651]

Grass every time. Much less fire risk. Easier to land directly into wind to aid directional control. Less ground slide.

Amount of damage to airframe irrelevant when pilot's safety is paramount.

[Double Zero]

I was told by someone who claimed to have flown with Nick Grace that they'd had a gear collapse ( sounded like both sides, or up selected when trouble showed, N.B. This chap may be a serious B.S. Merchant, jury still out ) & that the radiators dug in rather too well on grass.

Does seem preferable from the pilots' POV though...

[Jetex_Jim]

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/galleries/images/21768/500x400/me-109-repair.jpg

[SirToppamHat]

Good God, I didn't realise EADS had sponsored the Luftwaffe - it explains a lot about the 'work' they've been doing for the MOD, they're on the other side!!!

STH

[Jetex_Jim]

Interesting, isn't it. EADS keeps a selection of historic aircraft flying in Germany, the RAF foots the bill in the UK.

I wonder what the taxpayer would need to find if BAE kept the BBMF flying?

[Agaricus bisporus]

Grass every time.

Well, having seen the damage inflicted on a perfectly innocent P51 in a wheels up landing on grass and the damage I did unavoidably to a recalcitrant mid-sized twin in a simailar (but mechanically induced) state on tarmac I'd say the hard runway is the best option every time.

The hard baked hard grass did horrible things under the belly of that poor Mustang, and my 16 seater just slid down the runway - admittedly in a bonfire of sparks. Damage was limited to a bit of sheet metal and a fibreglass fairing.

Fire risk? How? Where is the fuel for the fire coming from? Nowhere if the aircraft remains intact, which imho is far, far more likely on tarmac/concrete than if structure digs hard into the dirt and then tears things apart, which is unlikely to happen on a hard surface.

[Saintsman]

Once had to recover a twin engined GA aircraft from the runway at Manston after the nose undercarriage failed to extend. All it had was a few scuff marks on the nose door.

Mind you, the DC4 that did a wheels up didn't look too healthy afterwards but that was mainly due to the props being bent back.

[Double Zero]

Speaking as one lucky to be alongside a Spit, and know people who've flown & dealt with them ( my father, very much with us touchwood, was a Leading Air Mech on Seafires at Salerno among other jaunts; he has been recorded on tape by the IWM recently ) I'd have thought a grass strip - in fact area - was the only thing which avoided many more accidents with WWII aircraft such as the Spit' & most others, the ability to take the wind angle to one's choice.

Most 'modern' Pilots, ie 1970 onwards, have it drilled into them from an early age to reach for the concrete & take its' heading, but a powerful tail-dragger in trouble might well be put on the grass at the best direction, sod the runway ?!

[soddim]

If I recall correctly, there was a northerly surface wind and a landing into wind was obviously a better choice.

[Brian Abraham]

Verbatim from USAAF P-51 notes - If you have to make a belly landing, it is best to make the landing on a hard surface. On soft or loose ground the airscoop tends to dig in, not only stopping the plane suddenly but doing more damage to your plane than if you land on a hard surface.

[SomeGuyOnTheDeck]

If a non-military non-pilot can make an observation here, the problem doesn't seem to be whether you should land wheels-up on a soft or had surface, but where you should land if you aren't sure the undercarriage isn't going to collapse. Wherever you do this, it is likely to be messy in a Spitfire if it does (and not very elegant in most aircraft), but if you can land dead into wind you should be able to minimise side loads, and make it less likely in the first place. Perhaps that was the thinking behind the technique adopted?

[Blighter Pilot]

And maybe not wanting to black a runway at a major FJ base or trg unit?????

[Double Zero]

There is the fact, good or bad, that anyone let alone BBMF will risk their lives to try to save such an aircraft; damage on a grass landing might need extensive repairs, but it's not a burned out wreck, and it landed into wind...

As opposed to the BBMF Hurricane with severe engine snags in the 1990's, which skillfully made it to the concrete, to become a fire victim which took many years to restore, though I don't recall wind conditions for that emergency landing...obviously the priority was to get it down quick in every way.

I would think blocking a runway would be very much a plan B thought, though uppermost in precious ATC minds.

[A and C]

So far the only "offical" data on this subject seems to come from the P-51 manual that states that Tarmac is the number one option. Has the Spitfire pilots notes got anything on the subject?

The prioritys for the pilot seen a little confused from the posts above, on one hand some are saying that pilot safety comes first and others are saying that blacking a runway is one of the factors that might have been taken into account when the pilot took to the grass.

It is my understanding that the BBMF Hurricane was already on fire (or the damage resulting from the engine failure made a fire very likely) by the time it arrived at the airfield and so the surface that it landed on was not a factor. I cant help that the value in historic terms had a lot to do with the efforts that the pilot made to save the aircraft, had this happend in 1941 I cant help thinking that the pilot would have just stepped over the side at a safe altitude.

[Load Toad]

Speaking as a complete civvy on this. In recent years we've seen TV news footage of various airliners landing safely on tarmac with various undercarriage problems. But when aircraft land on soft ground it seems that it can dig in and then go out of control. No matter what the aircraft the human life must be the only priority whichever is safer.

[JASO]

Of course, the BBC may have meant northerly runway (Rwy 01) rather than the rather Cranwell specific "North Runway."

Thus landing into wind and on a paved surface.

[Brian Abraham]

So far the only "official" data on this subject seems to come from the P-51 manual that states that Tarmac is the number one option. Has the Spitfire pilots notes got anything on the subject?
The Air Ministry Pilot Notes (1946) for the Spitfires IX, XI and XVI give no guidance as to the preferred surface for a forced, or intentional gear up landing. Only to bail out rather than ditch because of its poor ditching qualities. Perhaps a reflection on their operation generally from all over grass fields?

[Double Zero]

I can't believe there are not plenty of Pilot's Notes for each model of Spitfire, forget the Mustang as that's a different airframe & systems.

There's no way in this life I'm going to be let loose in a Spitfire, but if I was in such a powerful tail dragger with u/c snags I think I might be glad to see a grass - any direction as long as it's into wind - landing space.

[Fokkerwokker]

Slight thread drift however the briefing from my organisation at Duxford is that their wish is for us to perform a 'wheels up' arrival if an unpremeditated 'off airfield' landing is imminent.

They reckon the difference is something like 4-5 months to put it back in the sky, after a 'wheels up', rather than 4-5 years to rebuild from the manufacturers plate - oh and probably a funeral to go to as well following a landing with the wheels down with the inevitable 'flip over'.

I suppose a glider pilot may get away with it, given their vastly superior knowledge of landing surfaces as viewed from the sky however, should there ever be a loud bang followed by silence I have a pretty good idea I know what I am going to do.

[Double Zero]

FW,

Please forgive me for being dim, but is that a yeah or ney for landing on grass in event of a U/C snag ?

As for gliding dead stick, on a Harrier ( II version with the bigger wing ) I once told a Pitts Special pilot, who'd worked with J.F. on the Optica, the figures I'd been given - "4000' at 1 mile from threshold, Thunderbird 1 " - his reaction can be summed up in one word, which I can't repeat here...

J.F. May be willing to put me right about figures, I usually screw up !

[QTRZulu]

JASO

It was the grass strip at Cranditz where she put down as I have been out jogging around the field all this week and she was most certainly there Wednesday and Thursday.

The problem was resolved by mid PM Thurday when she departed heading East taking off from the grass strip. A truly wonderful experience as it passed directly overhead at about 50 feet whilst I was out putting the miles in.

[JASO]

Effin eck, the news got something right for a change;)

[Fokkerwokker]

Please forgive me for being dim, but is that a yeah or ney for landing on grass in event of a U/C snag ?

Oh Oh

I was blathering on specifically about forced landings 'off airfield'. Unless you are 200% sure about the surface being smooth, with no hidden gotchas, then keep the Dunlops in the wings is our SOP.

In a light Merlin engined machine I would be happy enough to use grass with an u/c snag. A clip winged Griffon might cause me to think seriously about tarmac. Depends on the sitch I suppose.

FW

[Double Zero]

Thanks FW,

It even makes sense to me ! Great to hear it from the do-er rather than armchair types like me; you should have a resident spot here, if you aren't busy enough already...

I can well understand the doubts about any old bit of grass, but do airfields - especially places like say Duxford - have well kept zones one can land wheels up on ?

Before my time at Dunsfold, it seems Hunter wheels-up landings were not uncommon, on the grass beside the runway; I'd imagine a Hunter without stores is a pretty slippery thing, the job might be stopping it.

As for belly-landing a Spit', I suppose if you have time it would be nice to stop the engine & prop' to avoid gearing damage, though that would be on the 'Plan B' list I should think...

DZ

[Blacksheep]

Sideways retracting gear with question mark over the downlocks. So, side loads on the gear seriously not recommended. Land directly into wind and pray its a faulty microswitch in the indication circuit. (It usually is)

[Double Zero]

Blacksheep,

I must stress right now I'm an aerial photographer, not pilot.

I have been along on a few flights when spurious U/C warnings came up, before or after take-off, they seem to be quite popular !

Despite flinging the thing around to try & get gear lock, all warnings tend to be spurious, the answer seems to be 'stap in tight, then land as lightly as possible'.

From a photographer's point of view, add, focus just beyond the canopy and hope impact will cause you to fire the shutter release !

A hint I can give is that trying to help by pointing out 2 instead of 3 Greens is guaranteed to make one off the pilot's Christmas list, no matter the life saving bit. ( not a normal Dunsfold pilot ).

DZ