I try not to get involved,but.

To those that suggest the take off at North weald was slow, get a life, it was a hot humid day. The engine was fine. It takes time in those conditions.

To those that suggest it was a flame out. Please learn that phrase flame out
Means that. The flames out. No sign of fire, nothing, a compressor stall on the other hand would be a flame out of the front of the engine, not the back.bthe highest point of pressure is the flame can now,

Julian is an uninformed twit.

The losses on Saturday are almost beyond words and my only hope is that some good can emerge, although if it were my family, I would at this time, not understand how.

It is with some irony that the plane which flew after the crash of the DH.110 in 52 was a Hunter. A truly different world.

However maybe the lesson we can take from '52 was at that time the display was entirely about the future. So many displays are now purely retrospective. Yes we all love the sound of a big P&W, a merlin or an avon...but my young son who accompanies me to airshows, loves the F16's, the Typhoons, the Mig-29's, the Reds and the Patrouille de France etc. The A400M display at Fairford was draw dropping.

Can anyone remember Biggin, circa 81/82 when the Luftwaffe Starfighters burst low level from behind the crowd line and scared the crap out of us all....and made us smile to this day?

It was frankly embarrassing to listen to the jingoistic commentary at Fairford this year...all battle of Britain, the few, darkest hour etc...when the Luftwaffe were flying a Tornado along side an RAF and Italian model.

At what point do we learn to respect and honour the past but not dwell on it. In that same commentary, despite a Buchon being airborne, not one word was spoken about the "brave Luftwaffe pilots"...and brave they surely were.

Maybe looking forwards and not backwards might secure a better UK airshow environment for the next 60 years.

Doesn't embarrass me. All of Europe owes a debt of gratitude to the Royal Air Force which prevented the invasion of our country and all which would have followed on.
Never forget!

Yep M0.9/300kts this was identified as the cause of the loss of Hunter FGA MK9 FG 261 of 2 TWU from Lossiemouth in 28 May 1980 near Dufftown. 23 degrees of flap used for low speed ACM but if the flap is not selected up before M0.9/300kts is reached the nose will progressively pitch down and cannot be raised until the flaps are retracted. UK Military Aircraft Losses

Ka-2b Pilot

From the Hunter T Mark 7 Air Publications A.P. 101B-1302- 1, Chapter 2, Fuel System,

18. Under certain conditions of flight, particularly during inverted flying, air may pass into the front tanks. Air also comes out of solution from the fuel at altitude, or the fuel may boil. The expansion of this air or vapor while climbing may prevent fuel transfer and allow the front tanks to empty while fuel remains in the other tanks To prevent this, a vapor release valve is fitted to each front tank.
and
Thus, when the warning indicators show, the contents of the front tanks only are indicated, this being the only amount of fuel available to the engine.
and
From the Pilot's Flight Manual, section 1-1, page 9, paragraph 18, Fuel Gauge Errors: "The fuel contents gauges have been found to give erroneous indications due to temperature effects on the electrical gauging system. The magnitude of the error depends on both temperature and flight conditions. Low temperatures at high altitude give gauge underreading; high temperatures at high speeds at low altitude give gauge overreading. During a descent from altitude, if the inaccuracy is a gauge under reading, the gauges progressively become more accurate and may eventually tend to overread."

Given that the pilot is still alive, I'd hope that some of the controls and gauges will be intact and give the authorities some factual info to determine cause.

Taildragger123,

It is exceeding 0.9M that results in the uncontrollable pitch down; exceeding 300 KIAS when below 0.9M is fully controllable. The limit is always promulgated as M0.9/300kts but the reasons for the M and IAS limits are different. To put this into the context of display flying, please note that M0.9 at ISA, sea level is 595 kts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb1tdCz1vJ0

Is this the sort of thing that attracts so many around the world to air shows ?

Pace

Yes, that stuff is exactly what the majority want to see.

Lower, faster, noisier and more dangerous.

The trick, of course, is to make it look dangerous without actually being dangerous.

I don't think it is. They are just harder to research the further you go back in time and when death by accident was more commonplace.


For example there is this incident which is hardly recorded other than in this link: ASN Aircraft accident 18-SEP-1948 de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito FB.Mk VI TA507
( ten killed in a hospital)


The 18th September 1948 was a particularly bad day for Mosquitoes with three of them being involved in fatal crashes during air displays at different locations. The one at Manston also killed ten on the ground but in that incident I think those would be technically classed as spectators as they were on the road leading into the air display.

I don't think airshow afficionados will ever get close to experiencing this though: :eek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDDxU5sB-SI

TCU I think you will find that the five ship Starfighter team that approached Biggin from crowd rear, low and fast back then (81 I think) were the Canadian Armed Forces Demonstration Team the Tiger Romeos. Great sight and sound, especially running down wind to land, remember it well. The kid in front of us was so shocked he threw his ice cream all over the people in front!


Interesting that on all the threads I have read on this tragic incident there is no mention of the changes made to UK Displays after the Ramstien accident which I think was the last time any major changes were made to air displays in the UK?

Also, if you ignore all the big blue 'Police Notice - NO VIEWING' signs on and around the junction both sides of the A27 are you not deliberately putting your self in harms way?

jls: In 1976 I was at Bournemouth UK preparing for a beach show. The Red Arrows (gnats) arrived at the airfield and beat 7 bells of @£$% out of it. The Leader flew sedately down the runway at 30'. Behind him a couple of the others mowed the grass. One of the last guys came down the runway and I swear if he had lowered the gear he would have climbed. The gnat looked as flat bottomed as an F! car and your backside was as close to the tarmac as Lewis H.

Back to the video & pictorial of the Hunter manoeuvre I have the thought that the the pull up was not at 90 to the intended final pull-out line, the runway. The initial pull up might have been closer to 90 to A27. The roll off the top for the 1/4 clover was not a 90 roll but would have required more like 135 roll. The target line was blind to the pilot as the roll off was initiated. The most significant ground feature for orientation was A27. During the pull through after the roll off the top A27 would have been the most significant and visible ground line feature, and it would have led to the runway centreline. During the descent a resulting roll of 45 left would have been required after the runway centre line was acquired. If it was realised late that the pull out was the priority then the roll left would be forgotten. It was now survival.
If the arrival manoeuvre had been a 3/4 loop then the runway would have been in view all the time and a 45 roll made on the descending portion of the loop to realign with the runway. As this was now a roll towards the target. rather than away from, then the initial pull up might have had to be made a little further away from the threshold to allow the realignment manoeuvre. My thoughts being that the target line would have been in view at all times, no blind spots.
Those with more experience might have further insight.

Jlsmith

The interesting thing about the Argentinian misbehaviour is that whilst it may be dangerous to mess around like that in peacetime, in wartime it served them well.

At post 449

The signs were most probably put up with the intention of not blocking the highway. It would be impossible to differentiate between road users and pedestrians and those who wanted to get a free view of the airshow with respect to risk.

one of the most amazing/dangerous display I saw was a Fouga Magister doing a low very level pass (10') at BoB Gaydon , he was inverted!!

[QUOTE]Ka-2b Pilot
From the Hunter T Mark 7 Air Publications A.P. 101B-1302- 1, Chapter 2, Fuel System, 18. Under certain conditions of flight, particularly during inverted flying .... I'd hope that some of the controls and gauges will be intact and give the authorities some factual info to determine cause. /QUOTE]

Not sure what you are getting at here, Ka. The Hunter has vapour release valves fitted, and anyway if there is a transfer failure, the warning doll's eyes will turn white and the fuel gauges will then indicate only what is available to the engine, i.e. 790 lbs per side. If you miss that warning, then a couple of minutes later, the very visible bingo lights will come on at 650lbs per side, which is a signal to land quite soon.

Fuel problems, flameouts etc., are probably red herrings because if you have a problem of this nature before the vertical upwards phase is reached, you will roll over and pull out of the manoeuvre. If already in the upwards vertical, you would complete the top of the loop and then roll off and go and sort the problem, or do a forced landing, or an ejection over the designated safe ejection area.

I ask this question from a position of virtually complete ignorance, so please forgive me if it appears crass. And before I ask, I should say that to me the pilot of this Hunter was as well qualified to fly this aircraft as anyone out there...

But, how can any pilot, who is not "line flying" the aircraft in question, completely understand the technical nuances of the particular aircraft, to a point where he can adequately cope with any eventuality? I'm guessing that the Hunter (or any other vintage aircraft) has plenty of "characteristics" that can only truly be mastered with many, many hours of familiarisation...

Red Arrows over London - if an engine failure
 

To answer a comment a bit further back about a possible engine failure over London - as single engine aircraft are not normally allowed to fly over London.

Few years ago a pilot from the Battle of Brittan Memorial Flight said in a TV documentary if they had an engine failure when doing a fly-past over Buckingham Palace, etc, they would 'bite the bullet and go in the Thames'.

He didn't say they had 'orders', from his tone it was just the accepted thing to do.

Practice, practice, practice, and if you can't afford that, either time- or money- wise, then back off the level of difficulty or risk that you expose yourself to.

I don't understand why people are citing inverted flying limitations. The Hunter may have looked inverted but surely it was pulling positive g all the time.