Hurricane Minor Crash at Duxford

[Olly O'Leg]

Just seen the news on Teletext - apparently the Hurricane suffered some kind of undercarriage failure on landing. Only visited the BBMF just the other week and so was just wondering if anybody knew the extent of the damage. Good thing is that the pilot was unhurt.

[Tiger_mate]

Hurricane loses wheel on airfield


The pilot who was flying the Hurricane was unhurt
A Hurricane lost a wheel when its undercarriage collapsed shortly after landing at an air show.
One of the plane's wheels buckled as it was taxiing at the Duxford airfield in Cambridgeshire.

The plane, based at RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire, was getting ready for the D-Day anniversary air show organised by the Imperial War Museum.

A spokeswoman for the museum said the pilot climbed out of the plane unhurt.


"The plane had landed and was taxiing along the airfield when one of its wheels seems to have buckled," she said.

"The plane is being examined now to see what kind of damage has been done."


NO photos yet but lets hope that slow(ish) speed means that damage is minimal and she can get airborne asap.

[Wolf11]

couple of pictures here


Hurricane u/c collapse (http://www.flyvintage.com/news/218/)

Wolf;)

[Noah Zark.]

As already said on here, let's hope the damage is minimal, and the Hurricane is soon back in the air.
But, the media reaction again! On Teletext first thing this morning - " BoB fighter crashes at airshow".
Let's whip the hysteria up! Words fail me. :(

[warplane.co.uk]

http://www.warplane.co.uk/Amadeus/CRW_4871.jpg

http://www.warplane.co.uk/Amadeus/CRW_4887.jpg

http://www.warplane.co.uk/Amadeus/CRW_4900.jpg

[The Swinging Monkey]

Oh the histeria indeed gentlemen!!

I was at Duxford, and it was all very calm and sedate and full marks to all the crash crews who were in attendance.

I understand from a friend with his 'airband' that the pilot knew he had a problem, and couldn't get two greens. The landing was gentle and no big hassle.

During the very gentle taxi back towards the flight line the stbd undercarriage leg started to fold up, at which point it looked like the engine was cut, hence the very minor damage.

I saw in the Cambs press last night that the ''hero pilot' steered his aircraft away from thousands of spectators' and all the usual nonesence the press dream up.

Mind, I suppose you have to ask the question...'wouldn't it have been prudent to shut the aircraft down immediately after landing, and chucked some u/c locks in???

Kind regards to all
The Swinging Monkey

[Grob Driver]

I too was at the airshow and I have to that I agree with The Swinging Monkey… Why oh why didn’t he shut it down after landing and put in the U/C locks rather than taxi it back on grass?… It’s never the smoothest surface to be taxing over!

Still, looks like the damage is minimal and hopefully it wont be too long before she’s back in the skies again.

[BEagle]

No doubt there'll be an inquiry into the reason such a national treasure ended up damaged....???

[LOMCEVAK]

Swinging Monkey, I would be circumspect about what your friend actually heard on his airband, and I would ask everyone to wait for the accident report before jumping to any conclusions here.

There are absolutely no problems with taxying a Hurricane on the grass at Duxford - the undercarriage was designed for much rougher surfaces. Please do not make knee-jerk suggestions such as shutting down and putting ground locks in (which are totally impractical) based on an incident for which the cause is currently unknown. If an aircraft is not suitable to take-off, land or taxy on the grass, the paved surfaces are used.

Shame it happened, but no-one was hurt.

[Grob Driver]

LOMCEVAC,

I'm curious to know why you say it would be "totally impractical" to put U/C locks into an aircraft which landed with only one green (Unless you know otherwise then we'll assume for the sake of your comments that it landed with one green). It seems like a perfectly sensible idea to me. And if U/C locks weren't available, then shut it down, leave it where it is and put an airbag under the wing for support until you can lock the undercarriage. I'm not knocking the skill of the pilot but it seems perfectly sensible to me. We don't know the reason for the accident yet, but it would seem that you've dismissed a perfectly sensible suggestion based on it being "Totally impractical"... What's more impractical... placing U/C locks, or bending a beautiful aircraft?

The issue here wasn't about taxing the aircraft on grass... of course that's what it was designed for... The issue is did he taxi an aircraft known to have a dodgy undercarriage, and if so, was that the best thing to do?

Cheers

[360BakTrak]

If the wheel sheered and came off then what use would undercarriage locks be?:confused:

[wub]

Here's a photo of the incident in progress:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=299700

[Beeayeate]

LOMCEVAC

"Please do not make knee-jerk suggestions such as shutting down and putting ground locks in (which are totally impractical). . . "

Please tell us why, in your opinion, timely use of the u/c ground locks is a knee-jerk suggestion and a totally impractical procedure when it is suspected that the landing gear is not fully locked down? Seems not only eminently suitable on this occasion but also the correct thing to do.

". . . based on an incident for which the cause is currently unknown."

If "not known", all the more reason that all possible measures were taken as soon as possible to ensure the safety and integrity of the aircraft (ie, immediately after the landing). Please explain, in your opinion, why such action was not the case.

And finally you wrote . . .

"If an aircraft is not suitable to take-off, land or taxy on the grass, the paved surfaces are used."

I don't think there is any call to be so patronising. The denizens of this forum are, I'm sure, all well aware of this.

[Synthetic]

There are absolutely no problems with taxying a Hurricane on the grass at Duxford - the undercarriage was designed for much rougher surfaces.

That may well be the case when it is fully serviceable, but if it is dammaged...

Would have thought this one would be covered by "If there's any doubt, then there's no doubt".

[Hueymeister]

I know this will encourage some fairly 'spirited' replies, but with swingeing cuts coming our way - what future has the BBMF?

Now before you all lambast me, I am a firm supporter of the Flight. It represents a great many individuals who gave their lives in the air during WWII. How much does it cost to run the unit per year? Whilst at the "College of Knowledge" we visited it and East Kirkby many times to see the Lancs engine runs etc. and were very impressed.

Could a consortium of interested parties not buy the aircraft on the understanding that they operate them for the usual events that we use them for? Surely as long as the airframes are kept to sensible hours limits and are well husbanded there is no reason why they shouldn't fly for many more years to come.

As an aside, at least the ac is only lightly damaged, and the pilot walked away from it. Let's hope that it is soon back in the air.

[Jobza Guddun]

If time or manpower is a problem when it comes to repairs, I'll happily give up my weekends and put 16 years of riggering to good use and get that aircraft back where it belongs.

And you beancounters can go whistle if there's any bleating about costs.....

[Zlin526]

Mind, I suppose you have to ask the question...'wouldn't it have been prudent to shut the aircraft down immediately after landing, and chucked some u/c locks in???

Hands up all those who were there??

In Lomco's defence, I can see no reason why this would have prevented the unfortunate ding. I was there & saw it all and it was a complete non-event. It landed on 24, turned right, Stbd u/c leg started to fol, wingtip dug in and then the aircraft ended up on its nose. Not much chance to put the locks in!!

As usual, a minor non-event which has been speculated to death already by both media and those who should know better.

[Grob Driver]

Zlin... I was there, and still don’t think it's unreasonable to think that the aircraft could be been brought to a safe stop and locks put in place before turning right on a failed Sbd. U/C that folds in. It's not rocket science...

As for being a non event... I disagree with that statement! Thankfully it's not a 'major' incident, but never the less, we now have one bent hurricane... It's class that as an event (and not a good one!)!!

[Archimedes]

HM,

if the cuts are as bad as predicted, the BBMF will be renamed 'Strike Command' and given responsibility for Air Defence, Tac Recce, Long range strike ops and transport... After all, it has the requisite legacy capabilities for these roles.

If the Chippy is still with the flight, it can be painted red and serve as the aerobatic team, with cunning use of smoke and mirrors (advice on this technique from G Brown, 11 Downing St.).

[insty66]

HM
The BBMF is not about the future, it is about remembering those who went before us. Someone far more wise than I once said, "Those who forget the past are condemned to re-enact it" or words to that effect.
The BBMF and all other historical flights are clear and vivid reminders that the freedoms we have were earned by the sacrifices of others. I truly believe that while they still fly their stories will still be told. Once they are gone all we will be left with are books and Hollywood. How many kids read history these days?

We should never forget.



ps. does a Hurri have ground locks? I'll ask my Dad, he WILL know (46 Sqn Battle of Britain)

[Tiger_mate]

Or in other words, uneventfull landing led pilot to believe that lack of `green` indication was an electrical gremlin, (Classic suckers gap!) and as soon as lateral force was placed on the said leg (RH turn is the worst possible case) the inevitable happened.

It may be minor damage, but is sure to cost a fortune in parts and manhours. Hindsight is a lovely thing, but I would suggest that the fact that the gear did not fold on landing is testiment to a very careful and well executed landing followed by a moments nonchallence that has bitten its victim. I dare say the pilot does not feel too good about it, but that goes with the very priveliged position that these people are in.

Am I right in thinking this aircraft is the one that bounced back after being burnt out on the runway at Wittering a few years ago?

[The Swinging Monkey]

LOMCEVAK,

If, as you intimate, the pilot did NOT know that he had a problem, then my comment regarding u/c locks goes out of the window, however.....

it is my understanding that he DID know, and that a call was made to atc saying that. I do concede that I did not hear the call myself, but I see no reason to doubt a good friend who imediately shot off to the crowd line when he heard the call.

If a 'knee jerk' reaction would have prevented this minor incident, then I am all for 'knee jerk' reactions. I am not a scare mongerer, or someone who blows things out of proportion, indeed, had you read my posting, you will have picked up on my comments about the local press blowing it all out of proportion.

And as for the 'totally impractical' bit, I am afraid you are mistaken. Why is is impractical? are you an expert on the Hurricane? I am certainly not, but, it was never impractical to shut down a big 4-jet on the runway when we had an u/c problem, of ANY nature, and tow it back. Or, just get someone to slip the locks in and then taxi back.

Your comments about taxiing on grass et al are frankly too stupid for comment, except to say that after 30+ years of flying (mainly heavy jets) I think I know the difference between concrete and grass, thank you!

Kind regards to all, and lets hope BBMF soon have her back in the skies.

The Swinging Monkey

[noisy]

"what future has the BBMF?"

Don't let the beancounters hear anything like that. Gives them ideas. If you go onto the RAF website you will find the 'RAF Vision'.
If anyone recalls, it used to say something about an air force which is pround of it's heritage yet forward looking and modern, but there's no mention of that now.

I know that the Tempest and Typhoons can have lock pins at the top of the legs, there is no reason why the Hurri shouldn't have them.

[LOMCEVAK]

Oh dear, I am afraid that there has been a bit of "send 3 and 4 pence" going on here. It was not clear to me in the earlier posts that the comments made about putting in the ground locks referred to the assumption that only one green light was on. I interpreted this suggestion as referring to all landings in a Hurricane, likewise the comment on taxying on the grass. If the pilot had only one green light on prior to landing then I agree whole heartedly that he should have shut down and had the ground locks fitted before even attempting to turn off the runway heading.

I apologise if my comments seemed strange, but my interpretation was based on the fact that there was no mention in the pilots' tent at Duxford on Sunday of the landing being made with only one green. However, that is not to say that what The Swinging Monkey's friend heard was not reported accurately.

Hope that this clears up the confusion.

[insty66]

Just checked with Insty Snr and he assures me that they did not have ground locks on the Hurricane. It may of course be that BBMF have a different oleo type to that which he was used to or they have carried out some modifications, if that is the case then I stand corrected.

Like all previous posters I can't wait to see it back in the skies.
It is a most under rated and unsung hero of the Battle of Britain and after. Always my favourite aeroplane.

[Beeayeate]

Thanks for the gen Insty, but even so, I hope the gingers of the BBMF have "manufactured" something to do the job - but then again, it wouldn't be "true to life" would it? Or does/should that matter for this sort of ground equipment? :confused:

Lomce
In light of your last, sorry to be so sharp earlier.

[soddim]

Don't know who convened this pprune inquiry into LF digging its nose in but it looks rather like a lot of half informed comment has already resulted in a half-baked conclusion.

Pprune situation normal!

[BEagle]

Why not:

1. Make normal into wind approach on longest run of grass available.

2. Shut engine down just before the flare (would the lack of slipstream have hampered elevator authority?)

3. Complete landing roll-out with prop stopped.

4. Don't move, turn, breath or scratch nose or any other appendage until an airbag (that doesn't mean a WRAF, incidentally) is under the wing.

[Reichman]

Because hindsight is a wonderful thing that not many of us are blessed with. Sometimes you get away with it, sometimes you don't.

[Olly O'Leg]

Not quite where I intended it to go, but interesting all the same!!!

Reichman is right - hindsight is fantastic but not much use at the time. How many of our day to day procedures change because of something that happened not previously envisaged? Thankfully the aircraft should only have minor damage with a dented pride somewhere, but how many "in hindsight" situations have ended in a death and Cat 5 (P38 at Duxford, Mosquito near Manchester etc etc.) All's well that ends well and if this particular situation should arise with the BBMF in future............

Insty66 - don't know if your father would remember anything in the pilot's notes about this case - there's usually something somewhere that someone's forgotten along the way!!!

PS. Thanks all for the pictures!!!

[The Swinging Monkey]

BEagle,

as always, you seem to come up with the most sensible of comments of them all (Oh! how I envy you at times!)

This whole matter revolves around whether or not the pilot knew he had a problem dosn't it? If he did know, then u/c locks/pins etc are all valid. If he didn't then it's just damned bad luck.

It is my understanding that he did know, and called 'one green' only, but as you rightly point out, the BOI will sort it out.

As you point out, why not land (gently) scratch appendages (including WRAF if your lucky!) put airbag underneath, and then go and have a nice glass of the Amber fluid!! Hows that eh?

Kind regards to all
The Swinging Monkey
'Caruthers, send a bottle of the famous stuff' over to BEagle, theres a good chap'

[ShyTorque]

Hueymeister asked:

"I know this will encourage some fairly 'spirited' replies, but with swingeing cuts coming our way - what future has the BBMF?

Now before you all lambast me, I am a firm supporter of the Flight. It represents a great many individuals who gave their lives in the air during WWII. How much does it cost to run the unit per year? Whilst at the "College of Knowledge" we visited it and East Kirkby many times to see the Lancs engine runs etc. and were very impressed.

Could a consortium of interested parties not buy the aircraft on the understanding that they operate them for the usual events that we use them for? Surely as long as the airframes are kept to sensible hours limits and are well husbanded there is no reason why they shouldn't fly for many more years to come."

Huey,

The BBMF should always be funded from the public purse because they belong to the British nation. So many of our ancestors paid for them with their lives. It would be TOTALLY incorrect to allow them to be "given" to a consortium on the basis of cost cutting.

The cost is tiny in proportion to what they represent and I think there would be an outcry if the RAF or MOD were to even consider this.
:ok:

[soddim]

The problem with allowing these aircraft into private ownership or even management is that they might be handled purely for profit - that could include taking engineering shortcuts, allowing incompetant or under-trained pilots to fly them or, in the worst case, selling them.

Even RAF air ranking officers in the recent past have sold the odd one and MOD have frequently shied at the cost of running the flight.

The motto of the flight is "Lest we forget" and we must not.

If we can afford the plethora of waste in public expenditure in various government departments and in our contributions to the European Parliament then I am sure we can continue to spend a little money remembering the great and unselfish achievements of our predecessors.

[Av18tor]

Went to East Kirkby last year and asked the same question,

Why do they not get it flying? The response from one of the owners was that they had no intention of getting it flying, until such times as the BBMF Lanc's flying hours have expired.

Their intentions were to keep a spare in hand, so when the inevitable did happen to 474, they could negotiate a hand over to the RAF of their airframe and this would enable a lanc to remain flying in the UK for many many years to come.

Must admit it would be nice to see two in formation but cant help agreeing with their decision.

[Reichman]

soddim,

I think the guys who fly out of Duxford might be a little miffed at your inference that they are "incompetent" and "under-trained".

A civilian pilot flying a Spitfire or similar would have to have a lot of training and quite a few hours in a similar type just to get insured. Not so the BBMF. When it comes to experience and training I think you will find that The Old Flying Machine Company and The Fighter Collection could outdo the BBMF.

And no I'm not being disrespectful to the BBMF. I think ANY organisation that keeps warbirds flying should be applauded and supported. Aircraft are meant to be in the air. not museums.

Reichman.

[EESDL]

Why does the RAF never maintain other fine examples of our past aviation.
"Lest we Forget" surely applies to all the other pilots who have died before and since the period that these ac represent.

Why not an 'Historic Flight' for example.
I think it has been done before.........

[soddim]

Reichman,

I make no apologies to you or to anybody at Duxford who feels offended. I did not suggest that they may be under trained or incompetant but it is a fact that if BBMF's aircraft had to make a profit the operating motivation and safety considerations might well change.

The BBMF record of preservation of its' historic aircraft looks pretty good to me in comparison with Duxford or any other private collection. I rest my case.

[Reichman]

soddim,

Your last quote:

"I did not suggest that they may be under trained or incompetant."

Your previous quote:

"The problem with allowing these aircraft into private ownership or even management is that they might be handled purely for profit - that could include taking engineering shortcuts, allowing incompetant or under-trained pilots to fly them...."

I fly civilian owned ex military aircaft. They are not flown for profit. They are operated under CAA rules. If I thought any engineering short cuts were taken I wouldn't fly them. If the owners/insurers thought I, or my fellow pilots, were incompetent they wouldn't let us fly them.

Does it matter who actually operates these machines as long as they are flying and bringing pleasure to the crowds who come to see them.

Reichman

[soddim]

Reichman,

Yes, it does matter who operates these machines because it affects their longevity and availability for those national and international occasions that a private operator might decide not to support. They are part of our national heritage and should be maintained and flown by our public service using public funds, if necessary.

[pr00ne]

Surely there is no justification to the retention of the BBMF as an outfit resourced and funded by the MoD anymore.

When the sight of a Spitfire, or more specifically, a Hurricane, was a real rarity then there was an obvious justification, surely with the ever increasing quantity of beautifully restored Spitfires and Hurricanes airworthy these days that justification no longer exists?

The BBMF started out as the Historic Aircraft Flight and was maintained initially purely to be able to put a Spitfire up for the annual BoB flypast over London, from here it sort of snowballed.

Howabout a halfway house like the RNHF where the outfit is privately funded and maintained but the aircrew are still current military.

Do the BBMF ginger beers still provide the Visiting Aircraft Flight for Coningsby, I know they used to.

Another problem maybe the forthcoming Airfield Services PFI that is going to privatise, amongst many other things, all of the remaining service manned VAS, VASF, TASF or whatever the are called these days.

[Reichman]

Good point pr00ne.

The majority of Spitfires and Hurricanes flying about are civilian owned anyway. In these days of cutbacks I can see the BBMF having to be operated under some sort of civ/mil system. Who cares, as long as they're flying.

[Grob Driver]

Good point Pr00n… No it’s not… It’s a bl00dy awful point!

Maybe I’ve missed the point, but from what I’m reading it looks like you’re saying that because a spitfire is no longer a rare site in our skies, the BBMF should be disbanded… What a fantastic attitude you have towards aircraft preservation. It still surprises me that the RAF maintain the BBMF, but for as long as they do, I’ll continue to ‘take my hat off’ to them.

Still, I do think they should be moved here to Scampton! Have them along with the Arrows, and a bit of a ‘visitors centre’ like they have a Conningsby…. I can see that being a real success!!

[pr00ne]

GD,

Warbirds are sold and traded all the time, even the BBMF have done it!
Just because I suggested that the BBMF may no longer be as relevant as it once was has no bearing on my view of aircraft preservation!

I am suggesting another look at the rational for the existence of the BBMF as a publicaly funded organisation, just like someone did to the Swordfish Preservation Flight, sorry, I meant the RNHF!

Is it really the role of a modern Air Force in todays climate to be operating warbirds?

[AllTrimDoubt]

What's wrong with today's climate? Positively sunny and tickettyboo where I am at the moment old chap!

[pr00ne]

AllTrimDoubt,

Said;

"What's wrong with today's climate? Positively sunny and all
tickettyboo where I am at the moment old chap!"


Tee Hee!!
:)

[The Swinging Monkey]

Proone old chap,

I must disagree with you on this.

The aircraft of the BBMF belong to the nation, and that is where they should stay, well out of the reach of rich businessmen.

I would not wish to get into the rights and wrongs of civilians displaying warbirds, however if you take a long hard look at recent (tragic) airshows over the last couple of years or so, I regret to say that the statistics for 'civilian-handled' warbirds is NOT good.

I am in no way pointing the finger at anyone, before you all start jumping up and down, but it must be seen in its full context. I will also concede that many are displayed by ex military/display pilots, but there must, surely be some underlying reason for the mishaps??

The BBMF record is pretty exemplory, and may I humbly suggest that the reasons might well include ... currency and proficiency? (Please, that is not meant to be derogatory to anyone else)

As Grob driver points out, disbanding BBMF because there are a few Spitfires flying around now, is certainly not a justifiable reason IMHO and I for one would reject that suggestion.

As for everything coming to Scampton? Now that is a good idea, and would undoubtebly save the MOD some money. There seems little justification to me in having to open Coningsby and Scampton at w/ends when you could operate all assets from Scampton??
What about it Airships???

For Gods sake, lets stop all this suggestion about getting rid of BBMF. Look at the Vulcan, did we not all learn from that little fiasco?? If nothing else, we owe it to all those aviators who have gone before us to keep this (little) bit of RAF history intact and secure for as long as possible, and in the safe hands of the RAF.

Rant over, time for lie down and a large Grouse I think!

Kind regards
The Swinging Monkey

[Reichman]

I don't recall anyone saying that BBMF should be disbanded. But with all the defence cuts in the offing I think it might be a matter of priorities. Personally, I wouldn't want to see the BBMF disbanded.

Swinging Monkey.

There are not many civilian pilots of warbirds who are not ex military. Yes, I know there are a few - and they fly to a very high standard. They have to go through exactly the same display evaluation as ex military guys who fly civ owned warbirds.

Take a close look at the "recent (tagic) airshows". I think you will find that the majority of the pilots involved were military or ex military. As always there are exceptions to the rule.

On the UK airshow scene the majority of historic military aircraft are civilian owned, and have been for many years. If the BBMF folded tomorrow there would be a 20 minute gap in a 6 hour airshow. If all the civvies went away you would have a 20 minute airshow - 40 minutes if the Reds pitched up.

Reichman

[Grob Driver]

Reichman… This isn’t meant to be a personal attack on you but…….,

Wow, I can’t believe you just said that! Are you really shallow enough to think that all the BBMF are good for is a 20min-display slot in a 6 hour show? If all you see in those magnificent aircraft is 20mins of flying, then it’s sad state of affairs! I forget the exact figures but bomber command alone lost something in the region of 60,000 men in WWII. The BBMF serves as a living tribute to those men, not to mention the thousands of others who gave their lives. They gave far more than you and I have ever given. And all you see is 20 mins of flying!

So, we pass the BBMF on to civvy hands… Who gets it?… The highest bidder? It’s a national treasure, and for that reason alone it must remain in national hands.

At the end of the day, operating the BBMF is small fry in comparison to the costs and budgets of the MOD… It’s certainly no good reason to stop operating it.

[airborne_artist]

Perhaps those on this thread with strong (and positive) views on BBMF would like to contribute to my BBMF fantasy aircraft acquisition thread here: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133721

[The Swinging Monkey]

Reichman,

Words (almost) fail me! Did you read any of what I said in my post before you shot off??

I am well aware that the VAST majority of civilian warbird display pilots are ex military (read para 3 of my post) but so what? The fact remains that BBMF undertake 100's of displays each year, with virtually zero mishaps. Civilian piloted warbirds fly much fewer displays and yet, tragically appear to have MORE mishaps. Why is that do you think? I don't proclain to factually know the reasons, but there must be one, and I simply offered two possible reasons why.

Now if I'm wrong, then I'll gladly take a hit, but unless you come up with something sensible to contradict me, and explain the reasons for the 'not so good' record than I would suggest you keep an open mind on the subject.

You also wrote: .....'I think you will find that the majority of the pilots involved were military or ex military'......

yep, can't argue with that - if all your eggs are chickens eggs, chances are they'll hatch into chickens!

And finally, your most outstanding comment to date was....

'If the BBMF folded tomorrow there would be a 20 minute gap in a 6 hour airshow. If all the civvies went away you would have a 20 minute airshow - 40 minutes if the Reds pitched up'

You patently don't get out to go to many airshows then Sir do you!!
I went to Duxford last weekend for what was primarily a 'civilain' flying show. Although we had a great day, I have to say that many people were pretty disgusted at the total lack of flying, especially from the civilian world.

But still, the BBMF were there
So was a Nimrod
oh, and a Harrier
and a Jaguar as well
plus a Hawk
and a Tornado
and also two Tucanos
just a few more than the civvies (oops, hush my mouth!)

'nuf said.

Grob, thank goodness there are still some people out there with your views. As you so rightly point out, bomber command alone lost more than 60,000 aircrew, not to mention fighter command, coastal command, transport command et al.

Reichman, as a fellow aviator you disapoint me. Comments like yours are what instills some little pen-pushing civil servant in Whitehall to come up with these crazy suggestions to ministers etc., that so often end up happeneing. Please refrain forthwith. Thank you.

Kind regards
The Swinging Monkey

[soddim]

Must agree with Swinging Monkey's point about civil servants taking up suggestions that could jeopardise the future of BBMF - careless talk costs dearly and that is why I jumped to defend BBMF in the face of uninformed criticism and careless suggestions.

On this forum, of all forums, I never expected to see posts like Proone's and Reichman's. Do either have a vested interest in privatisation of BBMF?

[Paulb]

I've been directed to this forum by somebody I work with, to correct the speculation and incorrect assumptions that are being bandied about on this thread.

Firstly, the pilot did NOT have an indication problem with his undercarriage.

Secondly, it is impossible to land, stop on a sixpence, jump out, put control locks in ( not that there are any) and carry on taxiing.

Thirdly, the leg collapsed on landing.

Now I know I wasn't there, but I have it on video and have spoken with the pilot.

How do I know all this?????

BECAUSE I WORK ON THIS AIRCRAFT!

By all means have a discussion about the causes of an incident, but they should be based on fact and not hearsay.

:*

[pr00ne]

The Swinging Ape type being,

These machines do not belong to the nation, they belong to the RAF, a part of the MoD, both of whom have a pretty disreputable past when it comes to preserving historic aircraft. (Beverley, Canberra B(I)8, Victor 1, Vulcan 1, I could go on and on…….)

Scampton is going to be rather full in the not too distant future and I doubt if there will be any surplus space for the BBMF to inhabit.

Grob driver,

To the average punter the demise of the BBMF WOULD only result in a 20 minute gap in a 4 to 6 hour display programme, there are numerous Spitfire, Hurricane display routines and they are increasing by the year.
How is a display by a Spitfire or Hurricane owned and flown by the BBMF somehow more respectful to the 55k who lost their lives in WW2 than a civilian owned example? 99% of the watching audience are entirely and blissfully ignorant as to who actually owns the aircraft.

Now the Lancaster is a different matter, it is unique in Europe and WOULD be missed, though I still don’t see why it can’t be managed ala RNHF as far as funding and resources go.

[Grob Driver]

Paulb

Interesting that the aircraft undercarriage collapsed on landing yet it taxied back in line with the parked aircraft (although is didn’t quite make it!), facing the opposite direction to the active runway (that being 24). Are you saying the aircraft taxied to it ‘resting’ position with the collapsed undercarriage?

Maybe you can help / comment on the proposals that U/C locks (not control lock as you state) could be put in an aircraft that landed with a known undercarriage problem. Is that an unreasonable expectation and if so, can I ask why? You say in your post that it’s “impossible”… I’m not saying jump out, put the locks in and carry on. I’m saying jump out, and leave the aircraft where it is until such time that it can be secured. If that ‘blacks’ the runway, then so be it… Welcome to the world for flying! If the aircraft has a known problem, then what about using an airbag to support the aircraft? Again, is that feasible, or do you simply have to continue taxing and hope the U/C doesn’t give way?

Finally, as someone who obviously works with the BBMF… Any thoughts on these radical plans to privatise you all?!!!!!!!!!!

Pr00n... the clue is in the name.... The Battle of Britain MEMORIAL Flight. As for not beinging to the nation, but belonging to the RAF... Just in case you didn't realise, the RAF in a national force!!! They therefore DO belong to the nation!

[Paulb]

Grob Driver

You are missing the point as it touched down the leg collasped
he didn't carry on taxing that's where he ended up!!! If it had been flying legends he would have hit whatever was parked there.

As I said the Hurricane does not have u/c locks

Finally there are no plans to privatise BBMF

[ZH875]

There is an easier way to save money. Instead of opening Conningsby and Scampton at weekends during the airshow season, just open Conningsby.

There is no real need for the Red Arrows, the RAF has a surplus of Pilots, and has apparently severley pruned the intake of pilots.

The only real use of the reds is as advertising for BAeS, if BAeS really do need the Reds to sell the Hawks, then maybe it would make sense to the bean counters to privatise the Reds and let BAeS run them. That way, BAeS can move them to their own runways and stump up for the pilots wages. No matter who runs them, even if the pay is cr@p, there will still be a glut of people wanting to walk into the bar and say 'Hi I'm Red One' etc.

Perhaps the only way to keep the BBMF fully supported by the MOD beancounters, is to press the fact that after the Tonka, the Spitfire is our second largest quantity of fighters in the RAF. (probably a darned sight more effective as well!), and that when we get Gulf War 3, the American Patriot batteries should not pose too much of a threat to the Spit.

Lets hope the Hurricane is back to full health soon.

[Grob Driver]

Paulb,

I genuinely bow down to your superior knowledge here and I fully trust what you say.

I was basing my comments on what I remember seeing on the day, and on the photo in the link posted by ‘wub’, where the aircraft appears to be well clear of the runway.

However, I am interested to know… Under different circumstances, in the event of an undercarriage failure on a Hurricane, where the aircraft is still standing, what would be the normal procedure? I’ve suggested the use of U/C locks or an air bag. Two individuals have dismissed that idea as ‘unsuitable’ (I forget the exact words)… We were all speculating on hearsay evidence… you seem to know the facts. Is my idea as ridiculous as some have stated? I now appreciate the U/C locks are not available… how about using an airbag? What would be the normal procedure in this case?

On the subject on privatising the BBMF… It was a question regarding your thoughts on some people views on you guys being nothing more than 20 mins in a display slot. You do an outstanding job (This isn’t meant to be a brown nose session!). I’ve been fortunate enough to fly in your Dac, and have had the privilege of sitting in your spitfires and the Lancaster. As some who will almost certainly never fly such a machine, that is a real honour. I just think it’s a shame that the likes of pr00n and Reichman don’t appreciate it for what (I think) it’s worth.

I’m just glad the pilot is ok… Any word on when we’ll see 363 in the sky again?

Fly safe!
Grob Driver

[soddim]

ZH 875 has a point:

Perhaps the only way to keep the BBMF fully supported by the MOD beancounters, is to press the fact that after the Tonka, the Spitfire is our second largest quantity of fighters in the RAF. (probably a darned sight more effective as well!),

The Mk19 Spits also have a higher service ceiling, unless you count the Tonka in full burner and give it unlimited fuel.

However, after fitting it with AMRAAM, the comparison might not bear discussing!

[Pie Man]

being nothing more than 20 mins in a display slot

BBMF don't just do the major displays, at some of the smaller events BBMF is all you get.

Pie Man

[Jobza Guddun]

If BBMF's funding ever becomes an issue, lets get the hell away from the Gulf, and divert the Telic funding to BBMF. Would certainly get the vote of a few people I know.:ok:

And give them a Mossie too!

Paulb, if you need a hand just shout. No expenses required.:ok:

[Gainesy]

PaulB,
Can you give any idea of the extent of damage to the aircraft please?

[AlanM]

Here she is (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/597763/L/)

[TEEEJ]

I watched the Hurricane do a fly past then break for landing. There was a slight bounce on landing and then the starboard undercarriage partially collapsed. The aircraft then veered off to the right towards the fence-line and straight towards me! As it got closer I was doing the old two-step dance left and right as it staggered in my direction. The pilot was obviously very aware that he was heading towards the fence-line and it appeared that he was using the brakes to tip the nose down to prevent it leaving the grass. Finally the props dug into the grass and the aircraft came to a halt. The pilot was out and on the wing as the first of the Duxford staff arrived to provide assistance. In my opinion it was a fine piece of airmanship by the pilot to bring it to a halt before it left the grass.

TJ

[Ali Barber]

Many moons ago I was privileged to be one of the Lanc co-pilots at Coningsby. There was only one other flying Lanc in the world then, operating in Canada, although it was subsequently severely damaged in a hangar fire and I don't know if it was restored. The Canadian one was operated on a commercial basis, although whether it was for profit or non-profit I don't know. However, the inside of the aircraft looked more like a modern airliner than a WW2 bomber. It had to have all the modern nav equipment to enable it to fly airways, make IFR approaches, etc, because it needed to get to the airshow in order to be paid. The BBMF Lanc is original inside (but it has been known for the crew to carry a hand held GPS). Whenever we landed, there was always a group of veterans that we showed around the outside and inside the aircraft. I think they would have been disappointed if it was decked out like the Canadian one. Therre is no financial pressure on the BBMF to ensure they make it to any airshow, if the weather or other reasons indicate that cancellation would be a better option, then cancel it they will, but that is to ensure the safety of the aircraft and not to say they can't be bothered. On the contrary, the guys in the hangar would always work especially hard to get the aircraft ready because it is a PRIVILEGE to work on them or fly them. I can also remember talk about a re-spar programme for the Lanc that would give it another 70 years of life! That is the level of committment to the BBMF.

Regarding the future of BBMF, I can remember my painful days in MOD. Every year there would be the round of "Alternative Assumptions", such as "what would be the effect of shutting Coltishall and getting rid of the Jags?" The bean counters came up with the cost saving and you came up with the reason why they were talking out of their rear end. In the end, the AAs are put in order, a line is drawn somewhere and all those below the line are taken and those above survive until next years battle of the AAs. From what I can recall, it was generally accepted that the line was always drawn just under "disband the Red Arrows". I can also recall that "disband/privatise the BBMF" was above the Reds, so don't get worried until the Reds shut down.:ok:

[Man-on-the-fence]

Ali

The Canadian Warplane Heritage Lanc wasnt as badly damaged as you were led to believe. It was flying again shortly afterwards(relatively speaking). In the same fire they lost a Hurricane and a TBM Avenger amongst others.

The CWH is a commercial museum that doesnt receive any Government funding. That the Lanc flies at all is a testament to the determination and tenacity of the CWH volunteers. A Lancaster, flying in any continent and with any Nav Kit is a lasting tribute to the bravery of the crews that flew them. Long may it be so.

[allan907]

Lancaster, Spitfire, Hurricane, Mustang - with up to four Merlins and their distinctive sound and the sight of aircraft airborne does it really matter what is inside? However, full marks to the BBMF and the political paymasters for keeping the aircraft in such top condition.

I had the very rare privilege of flying in PA 474 on one of the practice flights just before the RAF 75th at Marham. Started the flight in the m/u turret, then to the nav/cockpit area and finally into the nose bomb aimers station for approach and landing (Crew forgot I was there!). What a fabulous experience and a heck of a way to celebrate leaving the RAF after 30 years.

[The Swinging Monkey]

PrOOne,

Now I know your comments are too stupid to respond to.

Paulb, I don't think anyone is suggesting what you say, that being, to land, screech to a halt, jump out, fit locks and then taxi back - come on, who has ever suggested that?

If your comments are correct about the pilot not knowing then there is no question to be asked or otherwise is there?

But if, as more than one person has now said, he DID know, then the question and prudence of u/c locks is most valid. Of course, if, as you say there are NO locks, then that raises a whole new question.

Anyway, please work as fast as you and your colleagues possible can, and get her back into the air 'Pronto Tonto'. After the pathetic lack of flying at Cosford this weekend, we need all the aircraft we can get!!

Kind regards
The Swinging Monkey

[Reichman]

soddim and Swinging Monkey,

Apologies for the delay in replying, but I was out at the weekend displaying a civilian owned and operated ex military fighter - which is ex RAF, but sadly the RAF don't have the money to keep one flying.

As I said in a previous post I AM NOT ANTI BBMF. But as we all know it's the acountants who run things and when it comes to cost saving it really is a matter of priorities. Do the majority of the crowd at an airshow give a monkeys who owns the Spitfire that is performing in front of them? I think not.

Reichman

[noisy]

The Swinging Monkey,

As paulb says, the hurry has no undercarriage locks. U/c locks are definetely fitted to the Tempest II at Hendon, so this may be a late war innovation in the light of, er....experience. :rolleyes:

If anyone is interested the Hurricane II Manual is available from the RAF Museum for twenty quid.

ISBN No. 185367544X

:8 :8 :8 :8 :8

Warning: This product carries a five nerd rating

[soddim]

Reichman,

Good for you - long may private owners and volunteers find the time and money to display these wonderful machines to a grateful public. Since I am past the best of my flying years I was playing golf instead but I still enjoy the sound of merlins or a big radial over the course.

Since the public purse will not extend to keep more than a few historic machines in the air we must be grateful to the private sector but let's not support the idea that money should be saved by putting our most precious WW2 jewels in that sector too. The BBMF 'Last of the Many' Hurri and the Spits Mk2 & 5 are far more valuable than most historics and the people of Lincolnshire to name but a few million would be mortified if their Lancaster left their county.

Enjoy your season.

[BEagle]

Please tell me it wasn't the infamous 'H-gate' syndrome.....