Spitfire 'Crash' at Masterton [Archive]

Chimbu chuckles

17th Jan 2009, 02:20

I think you would find that if it wasn't for 'the really rich people' the numbers of flyable warbirds would be a lot lower than it is...particularly the fighters.

The accident rates on these aircraft are a LOT lower than they were before these aircraft became the valuable collectors items they currently are. The accident rates on WW2 era piston fighters was truly galling back in the 60s-early 80s period.

huges500boy if it was a ground loop there would be significant wing tip damage and one undercarriage leg would likely be under the belly as opposed to in the vicinity of its wheel well. I have seen no evidence to that effect.

Even if that had happened who the **** are YOU to comment you arrogant dill!

mattyj

17th Jan 2009, 04:44

Don't criticise the successful. If they paid for it they can break it if they want..thats capitalism

AerocatS2A

17th Jan 2009, 05:16

Remoak, as you probably know already, many of these old aircraft are rebuilt by the rich guys to start with. I guess it's a matter of it being better to have loved and lost than having never loved at all.

It's not just inexperience either, I think the biggest part of it is not being current. It doesn't really matter how good your natural skills are, if you spend too much time off the horse it's no surprise if the reactions aren't there when the horse bucks. Right, that's one too many bad metaphors.

There's that old worn out saying about taildraggers isn't there?

The above post is not intended as a comment on the cause of this incident.

ZKSTF

17th Jan 2009, 05:54

Certainly a few points floating around. Just as an aside, the pilot is a former NZ champion aerobatic (unlimited) flying a tail wheel Giles 202 and now onto an MX2 if I am correct.

I believe that is his passion and he dedicates a fair amount of time and money to it. Good on him. No accident report yet obviously, but it is my suspicion that he has more than adequate "stick and rudder" skills to fly tail wheel aircraft (for those who wish to critque and yes accidents can happen to anyone but.....).

It will be a shame to have such a lovely aircraft out of action for an extended time, a real loss. I have heard that the damage does extend to more than just cosmetic but perhaps someone can add to that?

remoak

17th Jan 2009, 10:00

Don't criticise the successful. If they paid for it they can break it if they want..thats capitalism What a (predictably) immature and asinine comment.

These aircraft, as well as being rich boys toys, are part of our collective heritage. The owners may legally be able to trash their toys if they want (or if they simply can't help themselves), but that is only because the law offers no protection. Now, if you owned an old house or building that was designated as a "heritage" site, you wouldn't be allowed to do ANYTHING to it - change the plumbing, put in a new power point, whatever - without written approval from the appropriate authority (the Heritage Trust in the UK).

This has nothing to do with capitalism, it's actually about protecting our heritage so that our kids and grand-kids can see these aircraft too.

Over the years I have watched several warbirds crash at European airshows, in many cases at the hands of pilots who only seemed to have a passing knowledge of aerobatics and display flying.

Sure, the rich might get them flying again, but that is pretty pointless if they all end up wrecked. Better to have loved and lost...? No. Not really. Not for the rest of us, at any rate.

And yes, the rate of hull loss is less these days - but then, there are lot less of these aircraft around now, and they are increasingly expensive to restore. The losses of those years (60's-80's) WILL come back to haunt us.

What I am talking about is the moral responsibility of those who own these aircraft, to preserve them for the nations that originally flew them.

Personally, I think it is a gross insult to the memory of the pilots who lost their lives fighting wars in these aircraft, to allow them to be damaged or destroyed due to the inexperience or foolishness of their owners.

And on that topic, I have met a few of these people with lots of money and classic aviation toys, and most of them were pretty ordinary pilots, low hours, sometimes only a PPL - but enough money to buy the expertise they need. Money DOES talk, and I'm convinced it talked a bit too persuasively in some cases.

But hey, what do I know. Let's go with mattyj's plan. Buy 'em, fly 'em, crash 'em, move on to the next toy. Nobody will care until there are no more airworthy (or potentially airworthy) airframes left in the world. Some types will run out before others - anyone know when we will another airworthy Blenheim take to the skies?

I'm just glad I got to fly a few of these aircraft before they all disappear...

Runaway Gun

17th Jan 2009, 13:48

There's some pretty passionate responses here, but why is most people against the flying of warbirds in general?

The kids love seeing them fly, as does all aviation enthusiasts, and the majority of warbird pilots are highly experienced and responsible pilots. Who cares if they are 'only' PPL holders - that in no way makes them any less qualified to fly and display these aircraft saflet. Holding a CPL or ATPL does not in itself make the pilot a better aerobatic, display or warbird pilot. In fact, many of the best pilots that I have flown and worked with have only ever held PPL's. Many CPL's have never even flown a tailwheel aircraft, nor even done a wingover, nor practised recovery from steep turn stalls, nor incipient spins. But I digress.

The owner of this aircraft is by far one of the best pilots that I have flown with, and I'm sure that his interests include keeping these aircraft flying for both his own enjoyment, and the enjoyment of others.

kongdong

17th Jan 2009, 16:17

Having seen this pilot in action yesterday, I highly doubt it was a lack of skill.

frothy

17th Jan 2009, 20:54

A couple of the replies here intrigue me. REMOAK you say you are sick of rich boys restoring these toys then destroying them implying with no regard. What about a list of examples. "facts, nothing but the facts" where this has happened in Aussie or Nzud..
Surely you must realise that without these entrepreneurial Aviation enthusiasts these treasures would never see the light of day let alone fly again. They would be destined to rot in old feed sheds and the like as do many more now, I know of quite a few.
Have a look and the Pilot experience of Aircraft (restored) flown from Col Pays collection over time,Narromine,Temora,HARS, Judy Pays aircraft,The Lowey's. Not 100 hr.PPL's, and that's not to say some couldn't.
To debunk your "rich man " theory, remember the Boomarang, the Wirriway Projects, and one going on now with the Catalina, recovery and restorations being done by ordinary boys and girls of modest incomes, and some no income possibly on pensions but with a heap of experience to offer so all of us can see these gems.
You'll find these DH 82/84/86 chippies etc owner pilots are festidiuos and would hate to see their pride and joy rolled up into a ball.
I have had the pleasure to have some old aircraft in my logbook but not combat aircraft, but I enjoyed every breathing second I spent in them and the last thing on my mind, I can assure you, was to see those aircraft laying in a hanger in bits.
You'll find the people who restore these aircraft have exactly the same passion and enthusiasm as you and I, and I'm sure pretty well everyone on this site.
I am glad now though that we have starter motors. The Dragon's port motor used to have a mind of it's own.
I thank these people for their dedication to preserving these treasures for us all to see.
Finishing on the soapbox on the t/wheel experience, I've got the odd hour and hell yea, I've had scenic tours on landing, come to think of it I've had scenic tours on t/off, but hea sure all of us aren't perfect.

Frothy

NZFlyingKiwi

17th Jan 2009, 21:21

The pilot in question may well be a "rich bloke" but he's hardly an inexperienced pilot, and although I've never met him personally from what I gather he's not exactly the "break one, move on to the next" type of person either.

remoak

18th Jan 2009, 01:39

Important for some readers to realise (as stated at the beginning) that I wasn't commenting on the pilot of the latest Spitfire incident.

frothy

I'm not going to spend my Sunday compiling a list for you, do your own research. Some accidents that spring to mind would include the Harvard that crashed during a display during the '90s (that was a NZ Warbirds display), the Spitfire that ran out of fuel (FFS!!), then the same guy (Tim Wallis) later REALLY crashed the same Spit. He admitted he screwed up both times...

With a pilot’s unemotional eye for the technical, Wallis tells how he crashed. He made a mistake with the rudder. “I made a complete stuff-up.”The old fighter hurtled along the runway, took off, veered to the right and hit the ground with enormous speed and force.
Feature: Wanaka Warbird by Bruce Ansley | New Zealand Listener (http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3403/features/4418/wanaka_warbird.html;jsessionid=1A21A62B89EDDE9B9FA2DF2C98E01 B31)

You will note that that both incidents were caused by fundamental, beginners errors - fuel management in one case, pushing the wrong rudder pedal on T/O in the other.

And then there was the Sea Fury that ended up wearing the hangar at PP, I seem to recall a Corsair that came to grief, and any number of Harvards that passed into the hands of people not quite up to the task of flying them.

I'm sure there are lots of others, but as I said, I'm not spending my day researching them!

I have no knowledge of the Aussie warbird scene so no comment to make there.

Also important to point out that I have no problem with rich boys owning and flying these aircraft, but I do have an issue with said rich boys not treating their toys with the respect they deserve, and that includes adequate training and currency, and not trying stuff that is beyond them. Three of the accidents I witnessed in Europe were gross mishandling - attempting loops that would have required 200-300 feet more altitude than was available, with the inevitable result (a Spit, an Aircobra and a P38). Not enough energy or airspeed... three destroyed aircraft, three dead pilots...

dudduddud

18th Jan 2009, 04:59

I don't think it was inexperience that caused this incident. It seemed like the guy was out there practising every second day. I would say that it was a mechanical failure.

The thing is these planes weren't built to last. They were rushed together in their thousands and weren't expected to see more than about 9 months of action before being shot down or retired.

It's amazing that they are still here, more than 60 years after being built, still flying around etc.

frothy

18th Jan 2009, 05:30

Constant mention of the "rich boys". Looks like the Green Eyed Monster making an appearance.
Here's me thinking currency,training,maitenance and respect were essential crieria for any Aircraft, not just "rich boys toys".
I hope you contiue your perfect flying career. Us mere mortals do sometimes make mistakes, but on this one you look like you might be completely left fielded.

Frothy

remoak

18th Jan 2009, 07:27

Grow up, frothy. The fact is that most of these aircraft are owned by wealthy people. Nobody is making a value judgement on whether wealth is a good or bad thing (I personally think it is a GOOD thing, as I get to use some of my rich friend's toys).

Currency, training, maintenance and respect are vital. However, I know for an absolute fact that some of these guys use their money to shortcut the system. They want to fly their aircraft with the minimum of training and bureaucratic interference, fair enough, but these aircraft are not 172's. The level of training (and general experience) of some of those operating ex-military jets, for example, is truly frightening. Read the report on the Fouga that crashed into the Firth of Thames in 2004 if you want a good example of what goes on.

We all make mistakes, but so far in 10K hours I haven't bent any metal or hurt anyone. I think that should be the minimum standard that we should all aspire to. Do you have some other standard that you aspire to?

Or do you think it's fine to have so little understanding of a Spitfire fuel system that you run it out of gas? Or forget which rudder pedal to press to counter-act engine torque? Most flying schools wouldn't stand for that sort of nonsense for a minute.

The idea that if you are rich enough, you can make as many mistakes as you like, and none of it matters.... well it certainly isn't what many of us view as being "professional".

Hempy

18th Jan 2009, 08:06

It's a good thing all these rich people aren't riding their Spits into battle with 7 or 8 hours on type....

remoak

18th Jan 2009, 12:10

Yes, because a lot of them would end up dead! Ever seen the stats on RAF losses amongst new pilots?

doubleu-anker

18th Jan 2009, 14:14

Difficult one this. If we apply more rules to an already over regulated pass time we become more of a nanny state.

As far as pilot error is concerned currency and relevant experience is the key. Qualifications have nothing to do with it IMHO. For e.g., what on earth would a B747 Captain, without other relevant and current experience know about flying a piston (round engined), tailwheel war bird?? The Blenheim in the UK, that was mentioned.

PPL's are flying supersonic war birds in SA. As they have the relative training, experience, are current and the whole operation is supervised by instructors who have the relevant type experience, the operation seems to be working well at TJ's in SA at the moment.

Accidents and flying will always go hand in hand as we are all human, therefore fallible. On modern equipment the human is fast becoming the "weak ling" in the chain.

I guess if we want to keep the aircraft in one peice we should ground all remaining aircraft but that would be a great shame as I for one want to see them in the air and not in some hanger!!

Chimbu chuckles

18th Jan 2009, 16:06

What I find amazing is that many of you complaining here seem to believe these aircraft are historic artifacts. In the VAST majority of cases they simply are not.

In broad brush terms something in the order of 98% of WW 2 era fighter aircraft that are still flying are significantly less than 5% original airframes. Most are new builds built around a data plate and many of the data plates are not original either. With notably few exceptions the truly original airframes with battle records are all in museums never to be flown again.

As just one example every single P40 being flown in the Oz/NZ region is essentially a new build...I have seen the wrecks that were allegedly 'restored' and in every case most of the 'wreck' is in the long grass out the back of the hangar.

I have explored numerous crashed/abandoned WW2 fighters during my years in the SW pacific and even the truly pristine ones were only good for making templates or for gaining knowledge on how they were put together.

It is a joke that they recover a shot down/crashed P40 from a Pacific Island somewhere, build a new P40 incorporating 1 or 2 original components and declare the aircraft as having 'provenance' or having a war record with X victories. On the Isle of Wight some years ago I saw several Spitfires that had been recovered from Russia...when 'they' fly again they will be new build copies incorporating a few components of the originals.

That is not to say these aircraft are not 'real' P40s/Mustangs/Spitfires etc, they are, and its wonderful that people are keen to build and fly these aircraft...but they are NOT historic artifacts that need 'protection'.

Borneo Wild Man

18th Jan 2009, 23:55

:ok:
Exactly C.C.
IMO DBs Spitfire Tr IX has little "Herritage" value.
This aircraft didnt even take its first flight until Sept 2007.It was built in the workshop of Dick Melton in the UK.The only piece of real "Spitfire" is a bit of forward fuselage incorporated into the build.
There were no two seat Spits ever bult they were modified after WW 2.

In NZ P40 and DH Mosquitos are being scratch built.You dont even have to have a data plate.For less than a mill US you can obtain a new built YAK 3.

(I find a 17th century door knob and attach it to my 2009 built bungalow-does that give it herritage value?)

A real travesty occured at the end of last year when a NZ based Spitfire XVI was sold to China for NZ 2 mill.
This was a Castle Bromwich built Spit with active service.
I cant blame the owners as they needed the cash to fund an even rarer warbird.(Hawker Hind - only one flying example in the world.)

So why dont you experts put your hands in your pockets and help save the real Herritage aircraft!Leave the boys and there toys to there insurance assesors. (Dont think you get much change out of about NZ300K for a bulk strip on a RR Merlin these days....includes Postage and packing!)

frothy

19th Jan 2009, 00:01

Chimbu
Couldn't agree more on the standard of workmanship in these rebuilds. A lot will remember Lance Fletcher Chief Engineer at Royal Newcastle(started his apprenticeship when the Club was at Broadmeadow) used to renew and replace when rebuildiing the Tigers and other like aircraft from the Dunlops up.
You may as well say they came out as basically a new Aeroplane and I'm sure those owners didn't want to see them as a bundle of kindling wood.
The point is we are slowly losing the experienced people to rebuild to close enough to original with the craftmanship that they have, and that's a shame.

dudduddud
Your right in saying these aircraft were built for quantity but as Chimbu said the rebuilds are quite often better than the originals(my words not his) but aren't you glad we have them ?

Hempy
Your right:ugh:

It appears you are infanile or immature if you disagree with REMOAK on the "rich man toys" and I can assure him my goals and expectations in Aviation would more than equal his (my opinion) and there's going on 41 years behind that.
If he has ABSOLUTE proof that the well heeled are buying shortcuts what has he done about it ? Not following it up with that proof is condoning the practice.

Chimbu

On the human factor, a FULL 180/185 in a blo*dy good Xwind short strip high DA etc your hands and feet are pretty busy sitting there on the edge and real easy to take a 360 deg. view of the surrounding country side, would you agree ?:)

Frothy

Chimbu chuckles

19th Jan 2009, 00:24

Indeed frothy:ok:

On the original build quality v the modern copies...well for starters they used magnesium rivets in a lot of the originals. Rivets were produced in both magnesium alloy and aluminium alloy, by the ton, and then thrown together..original WW2 aircraft might have all magnesium alloy or all aluminium alloy rivets or any combination in between. From the day they rolled off the production line they were sleek, beautiful, heavily armed corrosion pits with a life expectancy of maybe 6 months.

AerocatS2A

19th Jan 2009, 01:08

Or do you think it's fine to have so little understanding of a Spitfire fuel system that you run it out of gas? Or forget which rudder pedal to press to counter-act engine torque? Most flying schools wouldn't stand for that sort of nonsense for a minute.
Tim Wallis has a number of faults that made him a higher risk when flying aircraft. The main one being an all or nothing attitude that had seen him have some great business success but can be a problem in an aeroplane. He certainly didn't lack in flying skill though.

I think you're simplifying his big Spitfire crash a little. My understanding is that he'd been flying the MkXVI earlier in the day and then went on to fly the Mk XIV. The 14 has a more powerful engine rotating the opposite way and requiring left rudder on take-off. I believe it's not that he pushed the wrong rudder but that he set the rudder trim the wrong way. That's an understandable mistake, what he obviously didn't have was a set of checks to use to try and catch this type of error.

Another contributing factor was that his left leg is paralysed and he would use his right leg to pull on the right rudder pedal to achieve left rudder (I'm not sure specifically how he did it in the Spitfire, in some aircraft his foot was strapped to the pedal.) You can't pull with your leg as strongly as you can push and so he was weak using left rudder. Add that to a rudder trim set the wrong way and you end up in a situation where you can't keep it straight. He had a final option of aborting the take-off before it got out of hand, but that just wasn't in his personality. As I said, all or nothing.

I don't say this to defend him, but there was a lot more involved than just "pushing the wrong pedal."

Tim's mistake was not much different than one I saw an experienced Harvard pilot make. He was trying to get it started but had the mixture set to lean instead of rich. Why? Because the Harvards he'd been flying previously had a conventional mixture control, forward for rich and aft for lean, this one was setup for rich with the mixture control aft, it's a difference between the various different versions of the aeroplane. The Harvard pilot's mistake resulted in minor embarrassment while Tim's nearly cost him his life (and in many ways it did.)

I've tried to get the accident report but it appears I have to pay $35 to the TAIC, anyone know of an online version of it?

Sharpie

19th Jan 2009, 01:59

Yes I agree on landing a full 185 especially in a quartering tailwind at either Chimb:ok:u(Chuckles home for a while) and more so landing in a 20kt cross tailwind on the 'Old" Mendi Airstrip. By golly one's little legs were a pumping. Did manager a 360 at Chimbu in the early days within 10 hours or so of coming off a fewKs on the FU24! hoho. Sackemall! says RDB.
:ok:

Brian Abraham

19th Jan 2009, 03:30

The 14 has a more powerful engine rotating the opposite way and requiring left rudder on take-off. I believe it's not that he pushed the wrong rudder but that he set the rudder trim the wrong way.
Forget which book exactly, but was the biography of one of Britains famed test pilots (Neville Duke?) who related this exact story when he jumped out of his normal mount (Spit or Hurri) into a Typhoon and wound in full rudder trim the wrong way - didn't think of the reversed prop rotation and resorted to habit. All turned out well though and got safely airborne.

frothy

19th Jan 2009, 04:02

How many of you 185 jocks have landed empty(nose up trim), thrown a GOOD load in on a quick turn around and opened the tap with trim in that position, be honest:eek:
One 185 I used to fly had the trim on the ceiling, it was good easy to put your hands on quickly and easier to trim in flight
I'd heard that Nev Duke reference before.
The point of this post i think is to wait and see exactly what happened at Masterton without some pontificating and thowing blame

Frothy

27/09

19th Jan 2009, 06:42

remoak

I can only agree with you on one accident you have listed, the Fouga.

The first Spitfire crash well as being "pilot error" also involved a quirky fuel system, the second Spitfire crash as someone else has pointed out was precipitated by differences between the Merlin and Griffon engines. The Harvard crash was during a practice and I think your generalisations are out of line for that accident.

These types of accidents are not limited to the rich and famous, however the richer among us are the ones that have the money to operate these aircraft and they have as much interest in looking after their own necks and "toys" as any of us do.

The nature of the operation of these aircraft is that there are accidents from time to time, some of these accidents involve pilots very experienced in the operation of these aircraft. I can think of two very high profile pilots who have been killed in the last year or two, both with New Zealand connections, both accidents in Europe.

Your comments seem to me to be tinged with envy.

ekoja

19th Jan 2009, 07:15

Any thoughts on the Harvard that ground looped at the same airshow yesterday?::{;)

mattyj

19th Jan 2009, 07:21

Oh hell someone else dared to criticise remoak...27/09 get ready to be called purile, juvenile, infantile or senile or something-ile:}

Hempy

19th Jan 2009, 08:53

Forget which book exactly, but was the biography of one of Britains famed test pilots (Neville Duke?) who related this exact story when he jumped out of his normal mount (Spit or Hurri) into a Typhoon and wound in full rudder trim the wrong way - didn't think of the reversed prop rotation and resorted to habit. All turned out well though and got safely airborne.

Haven't heard the Neville Duke story, but I gather similar incidents were not uncommon. Quoted from 'Spitfire Command' by Gp Cpt Bobby Oxspring;

The first priority was to get the pilots fully at home with the Spit XIV which differed considerably from previous Marks of Spitfire in that it was powered by a new Rolls Royce engine, the Griffon Mark IV. To absorb the 2,035 horse power, the Griffon required a five bladed Rotol propeller which rotated clockwise in the opposite direction to the Merlin. This considerable increase in power coupled with excessive torque, needed the most gentle handling on take-off. No more than two-thirds throttle was required to get the aircraft off the ground.

In converting to the Spit XIV, pilots who appreciated the radical differences from the Mark IX coped quite easily, but those who relaxed or were careless caused some hair-raising incidents. One pilot in particular, Warrant Officer 'Red' Bloomer (actually W/O Richard Blumer RAAF! (http://www.shoreham-aircraft-museum.co.uk/news/page/2/) - ed), who had recently been shot down in France and returned to 91 Squadron after evading capture, was so anxious to get airborne again that he took off in a XIV without adequate breifing. The aircraft leapt off with a gigantic swing which with full rudder he could not hold, then headed at a right angle from the runway towards the hangars. After his wheels missed the top of the buildings by inches, it took those who witnessed his hairy exhibition a considerable time to get our toes unknotted.

remoak

19th Jan 2009, 10:50

AerocatS2A

My understanding is that he'd been flying the MkXVI earlier in the day and then went on to fly the Mk XIV. The 14 has a more powerful engine rotating the opposite way and requiring left rudder on take-off. I believe it's not that he pushed the wrong rudder but that he set the rudder trim the wrong way. That's an understandable mistake, what he obviously didn't have was a set of checks to use to try and catch this type of error.Yes, it was a Merlin v Griffon thing. As you mentioned, a checklist or an abort would (probably) have saved it. Apparently he did push/pull the wrong pedal as well, but I can'y find my copy of the report so not sure. His attitude, as you described it - "all or nothing" - well, I'm not sure many would agree that that is the right way to approach flying these aircraft.

27/09

These types of accidents are not limited to the rich and famousNo, but if you look at the patterns of accidents, you will see that the inexperienced and minimally qualified warbird owners - a group which tends to be populated mostly by the rich - are disproportionally represented (talkiing worldwide here).

It quite amuses me that some of you think this is about envy. I've flown my share of warbirds, thanks to these rich people you think I am envious of. They are my friends, but quite frankly I wouldn't trade places with them! Much prefer my simple life flying airliners.

frothy

It appears you are infanile or immature if you disagree with REMOAK on the "rich man toys"No, just you for your stupid and unnecessary Green Eyed Monster comment.

If he has ABSOLUTE proof that the well heeled are buying shortcuts what has he done about it ?More than you will ever know, as it happens. None of this is in the Southern Hemisphere.

Chimbu

I get the "grandfather's axe" thing, but if you look at the losses of the last 20 years or so, very few (proportionally) fall into that category (worldwide). And of course the reason people embark on these new builds is because so many airframes have been lost to accidents... think I'd rather the old ones were still around, thanks.

Pete Kynsey, who has over 700 hours displaying Spits and various other warbirds with the BoB flight, said this:

I think the best thing about it is that you just feel an enormous privilege because now Spitfires are so rare that you are very lucky to be invited to fly one. They are very valuable and they need to be treated as a piece of history. They mean so much to so many people who are watching them fly that all the time I am flying one I just feel I have to be very careful with it and not do anything with it that anybody watching would feel was inappropriate.http://www.channel4.com/community/showcards/S/Spitfire_Ace.html

How right he is.

AerocatS2A

19th Jan 2009, 11:09

His attitude, as you described it - "all or nothing" - well, I'm not sure many would agree that that is the right way to approach flying these aircraft.
No, of course not. Unfortunately these aeroplanes cost a lot of money. Unless you are born into money you generally don't get that kind of money without being a risk taker. So it's self selecting really. All that can be done about it is to try and give the best training you can to these guys so they come to appreciate their limitations (if you are in a position to do so.) Even then, training itself has its risks as we saw with Norman Lee's accident.

As a contrast to Tim Wallis, the other previous owner of P51 "Miss Torque" seemed very reserved and well aware his relationship with his aeroplane. I felt quite comfortable going for a fly with him.

I've always said I wouldn't want to own a warbird, but I'd love to be one of the selected pilots, all the fun with none of the financial outlay. Unfortunately it's been over 8 years since I had anything to do with a taildragger of any type and so the chances get smaller all the time.

The big problem with warbirds is that unless you're lucky enough to be associated with an outfit that does a lot of regular flying, you will often be uncurrent, and it doesn't really matter who you are or what your experience is, it's pretty easier to balls it up when you don't get enough relevant flying.

frothy

19th Jan 2009, 23:54

Hempy
There is a good read on Neville Duke. From memory he wrote Test Pilot and the War Diaries of Neville Duke as I remember a good read although after all these years I'd like to re read them.
Google him and have a read of the Telegraph Obituary and if you can get the books you'll enjoy them.

Frothy

Bastardos

20th Jan 2009, 01:35

Some of you guys need to get ya heads out ya arses

I was at the airshow for four days helping to run it. I was at the scene two minutes after it happened and you are all off the mark, based upon what the pilot told me.

As for the pilot, he is an absolute gentleman and superb pilot. I first met him six weeks ago, and he let my fly 1.2hr in the back of spit with never meeting me prior. That weekend he demonstrated superb piloting skills and displayed both the Spitfire and MX2. He let me realise my dream of flying a spit as well. He is very down to earth and approachable.

Pisses me off the tall poppy syndrome. Yes, he has some $$, but he has chosen to invest it in his passion - historic aviation - and has chosen to fly the damn thing rather than lock it in a museum.

It is sad that it happened, and he is beating himself up enough over an error let alone us (his fellow pilots) doing it as well.. What happened to support - we may all need a bit of that for when we dont quite get it right

Hempy

20th Jan 2009, 02:14

Cheers frothy, will do :ok:

nike

20th Jan 2009, 04:23

Like your work Bastard.

Remoak, not sure I like your idea of legislation.

There's enough static displays around now.

Fark'n'ell

20th Jan 2009, 04:54

Bastardos

Pisses me off the tall poppy syndrome.

Dead right mate. Someone in this country sticks their head up and the great unwashed masses want to cut it off.

Bastardos

20th Jan 2009, 05:54

I am not sure about the ground looping Harvard at the same airshow

For the four days I was there the wind was all over the place, varying from circuit to circuit at times. I only took up a Tiger Moth and cub earlier in the day, but in the afternoons the wind was all over the place at times.

I recall the triplanes used different vectors to each other for landing as it was varying so much. As memory recalls, it looked like the harvard landed into a crosswind and the wing lifted as it crossed the tarmac seal edge of 06/24 and then it went pear shaped after that as it ground looped. :eek:

AerocatS2A

20th Jan 2009, 07:00

Bastardos, I think most of the comments here are more about warbird flying in general rather than this specific incident. I wouldn't get too worried about Remoak's remarks.

Mr & Mrs Rocketboots

20th Jan 2009, 07:45

Bastardos - typical MS with changing winds (windsocks nearly always seem to be pointing in different directions), only vector not used in the show was 10, but even that was used by a couple of a/c first thing in the morning and prior to the show starting.

Harvard was landing on the most into wind vector at the time - unfortunate gust of wind (10kts +) with change of direction while tail still up slightly and wheels about to go from grass to seal at differing times.

Ground loop was lucky as it saved the crowd (and myself) from what initially looked like the aircraft ploughing straight in amongst us. :ooh:

Very lucky the port undercarriage didn't collapse - guess it was built to withstand all those student landings! (Also meant the pilot could make a reasonably sedate exit as the a/c ended up pointing the way they needed to go...:O)

Bastardos

20th Jan 2009, 08:07

Yeah, thanks for the clarification on the Harvard. I was out to the side a bit. I could see that in the Gold Pass area some observant spectators (pilots) were already making a scramble as the Harvard was heading that way!

Lucky pilot with that unfortunate gust of crosswind at the most vulnerable time...

Mr & Mrs Rocketboots

20th Jan 2009, 08:22

Wish I had been in position to be able to move rapidly clear at the time...

remoak

20th Jan 2009, 09:17

nike

Remoak, not sure I like your idea of legislation.

Who said anything about legislation, FFS?

Self-discipline and respect, maybe...

nike

20th Jan 2009, 11:15

Remoak.....

The owners may legally be able to trash their toys if they want (or if they simply can't help themselves), but that is only because the law offers no protection. Now, if you owned an old house or building that was designated as a "heritage" site, you wouldn't be allowed to do ANYTHING to it - change the plumbing, put in a new power point, whatever - without written approval from the appropriate authority (the Heritage Trust in the UK).

remoak

21st Jan 2009, 00:42

My point being that classic warbirds, like classic cars or classic boats, are not protected by legislation (a GOOD thing), but rely on the respect and self-control of their owners for their survival. Sadly, the potential for disaster is relatively high with many of these aircraft, and when you mix that with inexperience and a less-than-professional attitude - well, the accident stats tell the story.

There would be no point in legislating some form of protection, if you did that most would probably never fly again (a BAD thing).

All you can do is hope that enough of the original warbirds wind up in the hands of responsible owners or societies. That may mitigate the losses caused by the less responsible owners.

I still think that the comment of Pete Kynsey, which I quoted earlier, is the only correct way to approach the really rare warbirds.

mattathm

2nd Feb 2009, 08:03

OMG has anyone read this thread from start to finish.............

Its like chineese whispers with all your 2cents worth,
makes me laugh reading this crap that gets posted buy all the aviation experts.
Maybe thats why pilots have a rep as being "pilot wankers" who knows, apart from all you guys of course.

Go ahead hit on me for my post, I dont care, this **** keeps me ammused.

FYI $200k for the prop, Bulk strip, wing repairs landing gear repairs etc I wouldnt expect much change outta $1.5m and maybe 1 year outta the air.

It wasnt a ground loop 500boy, The landing gear did fail when it slammed into the runway cause it was under the aircraft when it stalled on finals!

Had the owner been a little more friendly to people saying hello to him everynow and then, I may not have laughed when I heard it crashed. :rolleyes:

Runaway Gun

2nd Feb 2009, 19:25

Had the owner been a little more friendly to people saying hello to him everynow and then, I may not have laughed when I heard it crashed.

And do you think that your attitude is any better? Disgusting :mad:

mattathm

2nd Feb 2009, 23:16

I havent the time to care as im still ROFLMAO!

Bastardos

3rd Feb 2009, 00:49

Well, all I can do is reiterate that I had only met him less than 2 months earlier and he was very approachable and a gentleman.

Of course, I have no idea who mattahm is but maybe he has a personal axe to grind

Regardless of the individual, it was quite sad and most definitely not a laughing matter to see such a beautiful aircraft in such a state :uhoh:

Fark'n'ell

3rd Feb 2009, 04:38

The aircraft hit the ground in 3 point attitude after going into a rapid descend from
about 10-15 ft A.G.L with the pilot not visual with the runway. The undercarriage
gave way and the aircraft came to rest on the runway after sliding for about 100
meters from initial contact. Pilot thinks the sudden loss of height was caused by
dramatic changes in wind direction and speed.

From NZCAA weekly accident reports.Presumably from the pilot.

Stifmeister

9th Feb 2009, 05:41

Yeah, airflow and speed over the wing changed as it got to 15° AOA and more.
That has always caused a sudden height loss if I remember correctly.
ROR...

;)

kluge

10th Feb 2009, 16:51

Messrs Chuckles and Bastardos - :ok:

What a shame that it probably won't be flying at Omaka at Easter - especially after its ordeal with the cousins last year.

I am sure that Db is as disappointed (and more so) as the rest of us.
Thank God he is safe and that the a/c is not too badly pranged.

Looking fwd to a few yarns in the club after the airshow at Easter.

Best

K

codenamejames

2nd Dec 2009, 23:30

From Stuff.co.nz - Latest New Zealand News & World News, Sports News & NZ Weather Forecasts (http://www.stuff.co.nz)

http://static.stuff.co.nz/1259798344/066/3124066.jpg

LATEST: An Auckland man has survived his second crash in his priceless WWII fighter plane in less than a year.
The spitfire plane crash landed at Auckland's Ardmore airport at 11.50 this morning.
The plane - one of only two in the country - is owned by local man Doug Brooker, who imported the two seater aircraft last year.
It is Mr Brooker and the plane's second crash this year; on January 15 it suffered a heavy forced landing on Hood Aerodrome, near Masterton.
Just after today's crash Mr Brooker told Stuff.co.nz: "I don't feel like talking right now".
It is understood the plane's propeller, undercarriage and some fuel lines were damaged in the crash.
Mr Brooker was not injured in the crash.
The spitfire bounced as it came in to land at Ardmore, causing the under carriage to collapse and the plane skidded for approximately 50 metres on its belly along the tarmac landing strip and came to rest on the grass, Senior Sergeant Peter Raynes said.
It is now angled with its nose down, propeller smashed and the undercarriage crumpled beneath as two mechanics work to ensure the engine has completely shut down.
Raynes said the pilot was very shaken up but able to walk away uninjured.
He has left the scene and was being looked after by friends.
Police have secured the scene while civil aviation begin their investigation.
Airport staff were liaising with the owner of the aircraft, painted in RAF desert colours with the markings of FL-A, for its removal from the runway.
- Stuff.co.nz

codenamejames

2nd Dec 2009, 23:38

So it looks like we won't be seeing it as part of the Pearl Harbour day at Ardmore this sunday.
Fingers crossed for a speedy recovery

chunkylover53

3rd Dec 2009, 00:17

what a spanker

he would've flunked the wings course back in '41......

Trojan1981

3rd Dec 2009, 02:10

he would've flunked the wings course back in '41......

Even Bader had a habit of smashing Spit's;)

NoseGear

3rd Dec 2009, 02:17

Bader also had a habit of smashing Germans:ok::E

Oh yeah.....he also had tin legs:cool:

Whats the saying..? Crash me once, shame on you...Crash me twice, shame on me.....:D:E

Trojan1981

3rd Dec 2009, 02:31

Bader also had a habit of smashing Germans

True:D Good thing for him that a war came along...

As well as the infamous LL slow roll, I think he crashed two Spits in a row trying to take off in coarse pitch...

Edit: Actually one was coarse pitch, the other was an overshoot.

#1AHRS

3rd Dec 2009, 03:25

Farken weekend warriors and self professed aces with more money than brains and ability... Oh well its his money and as long as he doesn't kill someone else in the process, let the crashes continue.

In comparison to the young and relatively inexperienced pilots who fought in these machines a while back, I don't think this individual would have given the Luftwaffe much to be worried about.:D

always inverted

3rd Dec 2009, 03:43

The ironic thing about this particular pilot is that yes he is very talented ath the inflight aerobatics but the fact remains that he smacked it at Ardmore today, and at Masterton in Feb, he also taxied zk-nut into a ditch at Drury a few years back, went there to get some work done and thought he knew where he was going instead of parking it on the strip, going for a walk to the hanger then taxing it to said hanger... Needed a little extra work done.

Seems he may need some dual time again to relern the basics, taxing and landing.

remoak

3rd Dec 2009, 04:06

Farken weekend warriors and self professed aces with more money than brains and ability...

Absolutely. There are few enough of these aircraft left in the world, without these clowns bending them...

spindoctor

3rd Dec 2009, 05:17

Back up the truck here.

Do any of you "experts" know the cause of this accident?

Were you you there, on the ground or in the cockpit?

Are you current on Spitfires?

Are you an engineer who has worked on the said aircraft or on Spitfires?

Do you know the weather/traffic/runway conditions?

The Pilot is probably the most current on Spitfires in the world, given the amount of flying he has done in the last few weeks. This doesn't make him the most experienced, but you have to start somewhere.

It may well be that he stuffed up, and we will find out in due course.

Perhaps he should listen to you guys for all your "expert" opinions?

ForkTailedDrKiller

3rd Dec 2009, 05:26

Perhaps he should listen to you guys for all your "expert" opinions?

He could do worse! :E

#1AHRS

3rd Dec 2009, 05:29

The Pilot is probably the most current on Spitfires in the world

Yeah right, then lord help the spitfires, and clearly not current enough though as hes just crashed two in a row during landing.

Trojan1981

3rd Dec 2009, 05:32

Col Pay bent his Spit at least once taxying too, he certainly didn'y fit into the Farken weekend warriors Category.

Maybe its more about attitude than ability.

spindoctor

3rd Dec 2009, 05:45

He could do worse!

Well put up then! What expertise do you have on this type?

Yeah right, then lord help the spitfires, and clearly not current enough though as hes just crashed two in a row during landing.

Go back to my post and answer "any" of my questions if you can.

Stifmeister

3rd Dec 2009, 07:26

ok all you experts...................

does anyone actually know what happened?

remoak

3rd Dec 2009, 07:37

Do any of you "experts" know the cause of this accident?

I do, I do, pick me... :ok:

The spitfire bounced as it came in to land at Ardmore, causing the under carriage to collapse and the plane skidded for approximately 50 metres on its belly along the tarmac landing strip and came to rest on the grass, Senior Sergeant Peter Raynes said.

It doesn't matter if you were there or not.
It doesn't matter whether you are current on Spitfires or not.
It certainly doesn't matter whether you are an engineer or not, and the wx was benign.

It was a hard landing, so hard that the gear gave up. It may not be the strongest gear in the world, but I've seen quite a few Spitfires bounce over the years, and you would have to slam it down pretty hard to break the gear.

This is not unlike the Tim Wallace accident in some ways, but at least he eventually admitted that he screwed up.

Borneo Wild Man

3rd Dec 2009, 08:20

same incorrect technique as last time
To high, stall,thump down on to the runway,little narrow spit u/c not designed for that

Stifmeister

3rd Dec 2009, 08:22

Was it gonna be a 3 pointer or what?
I mean these things on a long sealed runway, just wheel it on.....
if you cant see over the nose then your tail low and that will be a 3 pointer or a tail low wheeler.

Wheelers in my humble tailwheel experience are far more eaiser than 3 pointers.

Not that I know what was going on at the time...

if the wind was turning to the other side it would be neither a head nor tail maybe more crosswind
I cant imagine the plane would have been at MLW, 1 pob 2 hrs gas maybe
long runway, just hold some extra speed and do a nice wheeler, get it straight and lower the nose and work the brakes and rudder evenly.

mind you I have no idea what im talking about, most of my flying lately is in a nose dragger:ok:

Sqwark2000

3rd Dec 2009, 08:51

From an Ardmore source:

"nz herald fail...."ran off the end of the runway when it landed at 11.50am today, damaging the propeller and its undercarriage"

I dont think it could be more in the middle of the runway if it tried.

the story goes landing in a tail wind (unicom hadnt changed the runway yet)
compensation of xwind cliped the wing on the ground, bounced, undercarriage collapsed, lost a bit of control sidded off onto the centre grass ended up stopping 400m down."

Seriously though, is he gonna keep trying til he writes this thing off for good???

Stifmeister

3rd Dec 2009, 09:28

May I suggest some Dual Instruction from someone that knows what they are doing?:rolleyes:

Howard Hughes

3rd Dec 2009, 09:36

mind you I have no idea what im talking about, most of my flying lately is in a nose dragger
From the picture, that spit looks like a nose dragger...:}

Stifmeister

3rd Dec 2009, 09:55

Maybe I am in a position to comment then....
Bhahaahahaahhahahahahaa:ok:

Runaway Gun

3rd Dec 2009, 11:36

I have flown with DB before, and I would still fly with him again tomorrow.

I've never flown a Spitfire, and I'm pretty sure that DB can do so better than 99% of us.

Glad to hear that he's come out of this unscathed.

always inverted

3rd Dec 2009, 21:29

For someone with that much tail wheel time he really f#$Ked it up eh... Surely it would have cost less to do another circuit and try again.
Was it the first touch down that damaged the u/c or was it the subsequent out of control landing that resulted in the issue...
Nothing wrong with going round for another go. Glad he aint flying me around if he cant recognise something as simple as a messed up landing going bad.
When he is in the air doing what he does... very impressive.

Runaway Gun

3rd Dec 2009, 22:11

Who actually saw it happen, and who knows what was actually happening in the cockpit at the time? :suspect: You are all too quick to condemn.

HarleyD

4th Dec 2009, 01:43

FFS

Who cares if he crashed his plane (again)?

ITS HIS PLANE HE CAN CRASH IT WHENEVER HE WANTS

He paid for it, doesn't matter if it was cross wind down wind, wind shear, flatulance poor eyesight, stupidity, mechanical failure, long grass, pothole, lack of attention, distraction or finger trouble. Very bad luck and a big pile of squids to fix, but it is not up to this forum to pass judgement on him OR the warbird movement in general (except for remoak of course, cos he has obviously flown all the spitfires and knows every trick in the taildragger book). Mind you if there was someone in the back seat and they know what ACTUALLY HAPPENED, then by all means this is a good spot to post that info. but to all those who weren't actually in the plane at the time STFU about who's fault etc... and give us real info.

I have not flown a 'real' spitfire, I wish i had and I still think there is a remote chance, but I haven't. I have flown lots of planes and many big powerful taildraggers, but alas no spit. I will hold my toungue about whether this guy can or can't fly a spitfire, at least he has one (for the time being) to fly. good on him. Without these guys (rich guys) we would not see many of these types of aircraft flying at all, much less be able to help them fly them from time to time.

I know complete nobbers, ex-fast jet jockeys, now airline pilots, and others who I wouldn't let fly heavy metal IF IT WAS MINE, but it is not, it is theirs, so i bite my tongue and wait for my next opportunity to scab a zoom in whatever needs to go where, for i know that owning one of these bits of kit is out of my league.

Go to Oshkosh it you want to see extremes of this syndrome, even in Pomgolia they have wreaked havok on the reserves of 'rare' and 'historic' aircraft over the last decade or so, never mind , there are more of these WWII aircraft flying today than ever, thanks to CNC machining and the ability to jack up a data plate and replace all other components. all it takes is giga bucks, or in Muzza's case, kilo bucks and a level of dedication and enthusiasm that is truely astounding. used to spray his rice many years ago when he was a rice farmer with a shed full of old aeroplane junk.

Any way they are only inanimate objects, artifacts fashioned by human hands. i would rather have saved the life of one humen, like Fred Hollows for instance, than a whole squadron of mk XII spitfires (my favourite mark)

I would rather see children not starving to death in squalor and filth, than squillions spent restoring a B29 in order to celebrate the bombing of hiroshima FFS

Don't get me wrong, I love seeing those dream planes of my youth fly these days, the sound of these engines and the sheer beauty and might of some of them especially, but they are only bits of tin and they will all be gone in a thousand years or so, and no-one will care, they will have their own problems. enjoy these things now, while you have the opportunity. if people want to spend their lives and wealth in this pastime good on them, I benefit also.

Get your priorities right remoak, and pull your head in, you are not the world expert on every bleeding thing.

HD

PS
Finally got to see Bull Creek musem recently, great collection, but there is an opportunity for a very (very) rich person to spend a big pile of monies getting a genwine lancaster back in the air except that it is too rare to be restored to flying, better to let it rust slowly away, as chimbu said earlier, they will dissolve slowly but surely all by itself due to the nature of its construction and service life expectancy. (I think a spitfire was 150 hrs in service life)

slackie

4th Dec 2009, 02:42

Runaway....told you it wouldn't take long for the stone throwing to start!!:ugh:

remoak

4th Dec 2009, 03:28

Geez feel better now that you've got that off your chest, do you HarleyD?

Get your priorities right remoak, and pull your head in, you are not the world expert on every bleeding thing.My priority is seeing these aircraft kept safe from rich "nobbers" as you call them, who have egos ten times larger than their experience levels, and who think that money=skill.

I may not be an expert on everything, but I know crappy flying when I see it. This is the second time for this guy. During the war, young fellas with 15 hours solo were climbing into Spits, and they didn't all immediately crash...

Thankfully, there are still rich people who get that they aren't aces and don't try, but instead preserve aircraft for future generations - making sure that the legacy of the war survives. Peter Jackson springs to mind in that regard.

Going with your logic, none of these aircraft would survive very long, which may not matter at all to you, but would be a tragedy for those who have not yet seen a Spitfire fly, and an insult to those who lost their lives in them fighting for our freedom.

slackie

4th Dec 2009, 05:36

So REMOAK...do tell us as you seem to know it all...back up some of your allegations!
How much experience does this guy have?
How many hours has he flown in the Spit in the last few weeks and in total?
What was his Spitfire training, and who did his type rating?

If you don't know these answers (as others in this forum do!) then (as has been mentioned previously) pull your "green with envy" head in.

remoak

4th Dec 2009, 07:39

Oh grow up Slackie, I haven't made any allegations other than that the guy screwed up the landing, which is self-evidently true. None of the questions you ask are in the slightest bit relevant, because at the end of the day, in ANY aircraft, if you find yourself in a bad situation during landing, you GO AROUND and try again.

The thing that stops you going around is generally either ego or ignorance, take your pick.

The fact that this guy has now done this twice in a year is very revealing.

As it happens, I have spent a short time in a two-seater in the UK (not long before the new owner flew it into trees on approach), and I can tell you that there are plenty of taildraggers more demanding than a Spitfire. That is both from what the pilot told me, and what I observed.

I just love the way you automatically try to paint anyone who dares to call a spade a spade, envious. But then that is pretty much typical of this section of PPRuNe...

FlexibleResponse

4th Dec 2009, 12:42

"Let He Who is Without Sin Cast the First Stone"

slackie

5th Dec 2009, 03:48

No allegations?
There are few enough of these aircraft left in the world, without these clowns bending them...Quote:
Do any of you "experts" know the cause of this accident?
I do, I do, pick me... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
...and the wx was benign.It was a hard landing, so hard that the gear gave up. It may not be the strongest gear in the world, but I've seen quite a few Spitfires bounce over the years, and you would have to slam it down pretty hard to break the gear.How do you know there weren't other issues or malfunctions? Man, you should offer your services as a "remote" investigator! Who needs to actually be there or discover the actual facts when you can make baseless, uninformed, biased, and anonomous findings from afar!

The fact is - you can't.

Sure, it may have been completely pilot error, but at least let some who actually knows the facts make that finding.

remoak

5th Dec 2009, 10:07

Having a discussion in here is so frequently like dealing with infants.

So, slackie, seeing as how you don't even understand the meaning of the word "allegation", let me help you:

Allegation - an assertion made with little or no proof.

With that in mind, the first quote you provide is not an allegation as there is abundant proof that these aircraft are rare; the second quote is not an allegation as it doesn't assert anything; the third quote is not an allegation as the state of the wx is easily provable from published forecasts and reports; and the fourth quote is not an allegation as it doesn't assert anything that hasn't already been established.

How do I know that there weren't any other issues or malfunctions? Partly because the constable who was reported clearly stated the circumstances of the accident, and if there had been any other issues he would have known about them, having spoken to the pilot. I'm sure the pilot would have made it very clear at an early point in the interview with the constable if there had been any other issues, as any pilot would. And partly because of the demeanour of the pilot, who was clearly embarrassed and wanted to keep silent about the whole thing.

If you want to hide your head in the sand and pretend that there is some hitherto unknown explanation that will completely exonerate the pilot, be my guest. Anyone with half a brain knows better.

It also amuses me that you hold investigators in such god-like regard. The report might stretch to ten pages or so of waffle, but the conclusion will be that the pilot screwed up.

bluesky300

5th Dec 2009, 19:45

Jeez, watching this remoak stuff is better than watching fat spitting out of a hot frying pan - all spit and venom and absolutely no substance... If I had a dollar for every 'constable' who fundamentally misrepresented (with all good intentions) what they thought had happened at an accident site I would be rich enough to own something with turbines. Investigators investigate so we can all learn. I'll patiently wait for their efforts thanks.

Runaway Gun

5th Dec 2009, 22:27

Whoa! Do you mean to tell me that the investigators don't just finalise their report after listening to the police guy's quote that was second hand to him from some guy (professional aviation expert who has seen Top Gun AND Pearl Harbor - twice) who might have seen the impact, filtered by the media, and just stamp it "HANG THE GUILTY BASTARD - CASE CLOSED!" ??

slackie

5th Dec 2009, 23:45

Well at least he's learnt to use a dictionary...if only he knew how to apply it....

In the first quote I was referring to the "clown" comment, not the aircraft! The rest stands!!

M14_P

6th Dec 2009, 02:04

Exactly I never knew there were so many flyers here current on heavy high performance taildraggers.
One of the facts of the second world war is the sheer number of accidents that were non-combat related. The simple fact is hundreds of thousands of aircraft were written off in landing and take off accidents, due to total lack of experience and understanding on type. The guys flying these machines today are very experienced and mostly have done thousands of hours on lots of the same types, Pitts, Tiger, Harvard, Spitfire, P40, along with whatever their day job is on a multi-eng platform.

Whether it was his mistake or not, the accident has happened. Does anyone know how close the LA9 came to being a ball at the end of the runway on more than a few occasions. It has been ground looped by several of the guys no names here but it just shows that some of these machines are brutal and need that 120% attention, only once the machine has been shut down and put away in the hangar can one start to consider the rest of their day.

Hopefully they can get to the bottom of the issues with this particular Spitty and we see it flying in years ahead.

PA39

6th Dec 2009, 02:27

Lets face it..........everyone goofs up once in a while. Most times we're lucky to get away with it, bit sometimes fate plays her hand. Look at the aces that have died tragically in aircraft, guys that you unquestionably would place your own life in their ability.

I am sure the pilot of the Spitty feels much worse than all of us put together.

Ease off the bloke.

remoak

6th Dec 2009, 05:26

Ah GA, dontcha just love it... :ugh:

The simple fact is hundreds of thousands of aircraft were written off in landing and take off accidents, due to total lack of experience and understanding on type. The guys flying these machines today are very experienced and mostly have done thousands of hours on lots of the same types, Pitts, Tiger, Harvard, Spitfire, P40, along with whatever their day job is on a multi-eng platform.

Hundreds of thousands? Don't think so.

The first Spit, the Mk1, had 36 landing accidents from a total of 306 delivered. Most of these were down to the highly inexperienced pilots from much lower performance types, often with less than 50 hours total experience. So if ninety percent of those pilots could land the thing without crashing, why is it that highly experienced modern owners have so much trouble?

Anyway, let's all wait for the report that will no doubt conclude that the accident was due to global warming... :ugh:

angels one five

6th Dec 2009, 07:17

I suspect that the high incidence of landing accidents in Spitfires when first introduced to RAF service was due to veteran pilots with umpteen dozen hours in Furies, Gauntlets and Gladiators neglecting to lower the landing gear. They were simply not accustomed to mod. cons. like retractable undercarriages.
I have also read that some of the old stagers refused to fly their new Spits and Hurries with the hood closed, as they did not approve of such modern luxuries.

M14_P

6th Dec 2009, 18:32

Fair point Remoak, but a third of all Me109s were lost in accidents, and over half of all NZ P40's lost, I believe, were lost in non-combat accidents, just to name two examples.

#1AHRS

6th Dec 2009, 18:48

The spitfire was conspicuous by its absence at the Ardmore airshow yesterday and so was the MX2 aerobatic display. That aircraft had recently been put through a hangar door by its owner, the same individual who crashed the spit. Naah must be just bad luck eh, coincidence, because he's such a great pilot.

Runaway Gun

6th Dec 2009, 20:01

AHRS, what aircraft did you fly in the display?

tinpis

6th Dec 2009, 20:06

Not that television chap again is it? :}

#1AHRS

6th Dec 2009, 21:22

AHRS, what aircraft did you fly in the display?
Blissfully a spectator... And yup I was there when it crashed too.

Not that television chap again is it?
Thank god he doesn't fly any more, but a similar mentality.

When the Spit crashed at ardmore recently, there was a senior warbirds instructor in the rear seat. His advice to go around was ignored and his account now holds a fair bit of cred.
This highlights an issue, its ok for this guy to bend his toys, but what about other people? He has been selling joyrides in this thing.

remoak

6th Dec 2009, 23:01

there was a senior warbirds instructor in the rear seat. His advice to go around was ignored

Yep rich boys and their toys, it's the same pattern over and over and over again... :ugh:

HarleyD

6th Dec 2009, 23:13

#1AHARS

Quite agree about 3rd party injury etc. Perhaps remoak will get his true desire the unfortunate day an aircraft like this goes tits up into a kindergarten in a posh suburb. The consequences for warbird movement would be punitive and might well stop the operation of these magnificant beasts altogether in theis part of the world.

If CAA is happy for this guy to keep flying, considering the risk, then its all OK for the time being, after all they are the arbiters of Aviation Safety as far as I am aware, not remoak or some of the other prooninsh comentaters. (and very common some of them are)

Bluesky300, Hahahahah - loved that bit about the sizzling and spitting hot fat (head)

M14P - there are a few ag pilots that visit here (that I know of) and they have more heavy tailwheel time (in general) than any other discipline of pilots i would think. i only have 4k or so T/w as I do a lot of other stuff these days, but many are well over the 10k mark. Not up to remoak's standard of course but, hey, we just do what we can, very few of us are divinely annointed by the omniscience as that self professed leading authority on...... everything....so obviously is.

HD

remoak

7th Dec 2009, 01:25

HarleyD

Nobody wants to see warbirds stop flying... but I do want to see them stop crashing.Not up to remoak's standard of course

The only standard I have is that pilots fly safely and don't crash, and that they exercise airmanship. You obviously have a different view...

gupta

7th Dec 2009, 09:01

The only standard I have is that pilots fly safely and don't crash

I've been watching this one with interest, and the arrogance is staggering.

So anyone who has bent one is in your frame eh remoak?

You must be that superior being we keep seeing on TV eh?

Never come close?

Never, ever, done something a bit less than kosher?

Ever thought that at a certain point you can't go around, and its better to get it on the deck a bit bent?

If you answer "no" to all the above I want to fly with you and you alone in the future 'cos that would mean we are bulletproof. Until reality strikes.........

tinpis

7th Dec 2009, 09:06

What does a senior warbirds instructor look like in Kiwi?

remoak

7th Dec 2009, 09:23

So anyone who has bent one is in your frame eh remoak?Not really, but people who bend one twice in the same year, doing the same thing, definitely are.

And no, I've never bent or otherwise damaged an aircraft, and never pushed a bad situation (which is why I've never bent one). I'm guessing that most pilots fall into that category. In my case it's probably because 90% of my flying has been in the airlines, where such activity is discouraged.

Ever thought that at a certain point you can't go around, and its better to get it on the deck a bit bent?Are you for real? :rolleyes:

gupta

7th Dec 2009, 09:32

I am real (BTW, ever flown in PNG?), not perfect - far from it - but I don't slag off people who make mistakes - to borrow a paraphrase, there are two types of people - those who have just made a mistake, & then there are those just about to........
I reserve my scorn for those who believe that they will NEVER do something wrong because they are better than the herd.

#1AHRS

7th Dec 2009, 20:06

What does a senior warbirds instructor look like in Kiwi?

Well they all wear those green flight suits with badges and stuff sewn all over them that reek of either "I would have been if I could have been" or "once upon a time". NZ Warbirds does have a C&T organisation.

Really the issue here is about Mr DB's decision making process, he does a good aerobatic display and has proved beyond doubt that he has good hands, but thats not all that makes a good pilot. Right? He clearly, for some reason, perhaps a hazardous overconfidence or not able to take advice, makes poor decisions and doesn't know when to say "when".

Good pilots have both good hands and good judgement that includes decision making. Something that most professional pilots have figured out.

Though he is flying a WW2 aircraft, it isn't 1945 anymore and we have learn't some since then. Right?
He needs to get a grip on himself (not just a small part of his anatomy) and perhaps get a professional to demo his aircraft, or do some serious remedial training before he kills himself or some other poor innocent bystander.

Runaway Gun

7th Dec 2009, 20:43

Dare I ask: C&T means what?

#1AHRS

7th Dec 2009, 20:46

Widely known through-out the industry as Check and Training...

HarleyD

7th Dec 2009, 21:14

"The only standard I have is that pilots fly safely and don't crash, and that they exercise airmanship."

remoac - That may be your standard

Mine is - that I fly safely and dont crash, and that I exersise airmanship.

I am also a Grade 1 Flight Instructor of 20 years and I do my best that to have students emulate these standards. teachiing sprogs to do things properly IS MY JOB. I am still trying to do it at a different level these days and I am amazed at the sometimes crap standard of even chief pilots at sizeable organizations, however I just do MY bit as well as I can and don't get on my high horse here and sh!t can this Spitfire guy and all other warbirders just cos they are doing what I think is wrong.

BTW does - "I spent some time in a spit" mean that you were hands on landing the thing=, or are you a black hander with strongly held views about how things SHOULD be done in the world according to remoac.

Get off your high horse mate, the world is a wonderful place, enjoy these fabulous aircraft while you can, and YES, they will all dissolve in a pile of whitish blue powder given enough time, if not completely rebuilt with modern materials (all the pommy ones will anyway, the seppos used far better manufacturing techniques and materials). get out and enjoy the sights and sounds of Merlins and Allisons and DB603's. don't lock them all up for "the future" whatever that is. enjoy your 'heritage" while you can.

Interesting that so many of the Bf 109's and Buchons have suffered landing accidents, they must all be flown by complete dills as well. I thought that nearly half of all 109 losses during WWII were take off and landing accidents by trained Luftwffe pilots. modern day losses are about the same it appears, so the "nobber pilot factor" is probably about the same.

Flown the 109/buchon as well have you remoac? Even I would be a bit nervous in one of them I'm thinking. that might be one to put in the shed once I had been around the block on it once or twice. I think this may never happen, so I will just let the rich guys fly them as they were obvoiusly meant to be flown, and let them pay for the repairs. I must say that they sound awesome, very different sound to the merlin in a spit (which is different to a merlin in a P51 etc etc )

It's a bit rich to criticise the few who are restoring these enormously expensive indulgences when in the post war period so many were just melted down for scrap metal. we should have put a few more of them in museums then, not stuck them outside RAF bases in the weather in order to expidite their demise. If it hadn't been for the "other" Battle of Britain in 1968 there would be bugger all spits left by now at all. thank these guys for getting these planes back in the air, they are doing more for the 'heritage value" than all the rivet counters and plane spotters put together

I still say - if these guys have the brass to get these data plates back in the air - good on them, they are very obviously not infallible, but neither am I rich enough to own one and fly it as perfectly as should be done, hahahaha

HD

Motorbike saying - Ride it, don't hide it

remoak

7th Dec 2009, 23:30

To clear up a couple of things, no I haven't flown a Spit, but I was sitting in the back with a guy who flew them in the war (amongst other types, notably Mosquitos). It was a "thank you" flight for helping out with some other warbird flying I was doing for the film "Memphis Belle" back in 1988. The point is, that the guy I was flying with had a lot to say about how Spitfires should be flown, what the vices are, and how newbie pilots coped with them during WWII. What was illuminating to me, was his view that the aircraft was basically without vices (for it's era), and that the majority of modern accidents were down to mishandling or overconfidence, or, as he put it, ego.

This was about the same time that another rich enthusiast, Charles Church, had written himself off in a Spitfire while trying to "stretch the glide" back to Blackbushe following an engine failure. As my guy remarked, he had flown over several highly suitable paddocks to get back to the airport... but instead, he stalled and spun in just outside the airport perimeter. He had a PPL and not much experience.

If you look back over the Spitifire losses in the modern era, most if not all of them are down to really, really silly errors that you would probably be thoroughly ashamed of if you had made them.

Anyway, you clearly think that it is fine to trash these classics as long as you have the money to buy them, on the basis that they will eventually dissolve anyway. I see that as being a somewhat short-sighted and self-serving argument. But whatever floats your boat.

I have no issues with people with the requisite amount of money getting these aircraft flying, but I do have an issue with the idea that money=skill. That type of thinking, and the egos that go with it, are pretty common in the warbird world (which I have been a part of since the '80s). It goes with the territory. Look at all the recent warbird accidents in NZ and you see the same depressing thread running through all of them. At least wartime pilots had an excuse, they were thrust into these aircraft with the bare minimum of training and told to do a job. There are no such constraints on modern pilots.

You may not care if all these aircraft end up as smoking holes in the ground, but I do, and it has nothing at all to do with "high horses" as you put it. Maybe you will change your mind when they are all gone...

philipnz

8th Dec 2009, 05:00

When the Spit crashed at ardmore recently, there was a senior warbirds instructor in the rear seat. His advice to go around was ignored and his account now holds a fair bit of cred.

Interesting as the CAA report says there was 1 pob.

http://www.caa.govt.nz/Weekly_Accident_Reports/Accidents_registered_to_07_Dec_09.pdf

ekoja

8th Dec 2009, 06:25

Maybe Brendon Deere might loan him his one.

henry crun

8th Dec 2009, 07:17

I have the very strong impression that Brendon Deere is quite happy with the pilot who currently flies his Spitfire. :)

tinpis

8th Dec 2009, 22:00

Hmmm... POB 1. Was the instructor somewhere safe like the AC bar? :hmm:

spindoctor

9th Dec 2009, 03:05

#1AHRS

Go and give your mate in the bar who gave you your inside info a good clip round the ear, then give yourself one for posting incorrect info.

There was NO Warbird instructor in the back seat.

There was a person in the rear seat, who on this occasion was there for a reason.

BTW Some of those Warbird instructors have experience that you can only dream of.

Trojan1981

21st Jun 2010, 13:57

What's happening with this aircraft now? Is it likely to be back in the air anytime soon?
Please, only post if you actually have some info, as opposed to opinion. Cheers:ok:

Stifmeister

21st Jun 2010, 23:43

Yip avspecs are doing the repair (again)
hopefully this will be the last time they repair it.......
before end of the year....

Trojan1981

22nd Jun 2010, 00:26

Ok, thanks:ok:

Wallsofchina

22nd Jun 2010, 04:32

Aerocat, that's the way the accident was listed at either Wanaka or Christchurch museum - engine rotation was opposite and he set rudder trim the wrong way. Easy mistake to make.

M14_P

22nd Jun 2010, 11:17

Yep it looks set to appear at Omaka next year, along with.....the locally based Fw190, Graham Frew's new Yak 3, Yagen's MOSQUITO, Bill Reid's Anson, and a second BE2, and all three SE5a's, and well the list continues. Basically, one may want to make a note in the diary, got our accomm booked last week! :)

Trojan1981

22nd Jun 2010, 12:46

LeadSled

22nd Jun 2010, 13:30

remoak,

As long as you have the dataplate, you can build the rest, there is not too much "original" in most of the Spitfire's flying, including no original wings by now, because of spar metallurgical problems.

I always think it is ironical that the only source of props for a Spitfire or Hurricane is in Germany, and this has been the case for many years.

One of the nicest Hurricanes flying started its rebuild as a firewall and a bit of the centre section, but you should see it now. Have you seen pictures of some of the "Hurricanes" retrieved from Russia in recent years?

Tootle pip!!

M14_P

28th Jun 2010, 12:14

Yes but the point is, according to the pilots, they fly right, we can all vouch for them sounding right, and they certainly all look right. In these modern times, they are as original and as classic as the Black 6's and MH434's so let's not complain about originality please, just be thankful. :) Oh and while on this subject, roll on the summer display season.

remoak

29th Jun 2010, 02:33

there is not too much "original" in most of the Spitfire's flying

Well I don't actually agree with you there, but in the cases where it is true, call those Spitfires what they actually are - remanufactured copies. There is no way an aircraft that only has a bit of original firewall, or a just an original dataplate, is an original warbird, but that is exactly what most of the owners would claim.

If you want to build a copy of a warbird, even including a small bit of a real one, feel absolutely free, and you should feel free to crash it at your leisure - I couldn't care less.

But the REAL ones should be preserved for future generations. it's no different to National Trust buildings in the UK... if you buy a "listed" building, you can live in it, but you can't change it to any significant extent, and you certainly can't demolish it. It's a condition of ownership imposed by the government.

The reason I think this is that, having moved in warbird circles quite a bit over the years, and flown a few myself, I have come to the conclusion that lot of people that buy these aircraft may be rich, but they are woefully bad pilots. They might get through the type training, but their attitude is often not what I would call "professional", and although they might talk the talk, most of them couldn't walk the walk without the aid of crutches and professional help. You only have to read the accident reports regarding crashed warbirds to see that this is true... quite a few Spitfires have been lost for the most ridiculous reasons.

Again, I wouldn't care if there were lots of these aircraft around... but the number decreases every time another f***wit with a large wallet and matching ego, and little skill, smashes one up.

AerocatS2A

29th Jun 2010, 02:44

Keep in mind, Remoak, that a lot of these aeroplanes wouldn't be flying in the first place if it wasn't for the guy with a fat wallet. If someone with a heap of money decides to restore a warbird and then flies and crashes the thing, it's not a net loss, we're just back where we started. In principle I agree with you though.

Aerozepplin

29th Jun 2010, 03:18

A very interesting read:
P-51 Mustang Check-out, Pilot Report (http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepMustangBurch.html)

The amount of work that went into getting into the cockpit of a P-51 was very interesting, and the SNJ sounds like a fun bird...

Maybe you should pick one up and open a school Remoak?

remoak

29th Jun 2010, 08:42

AerocatS2A

If someone with a heap of money decides to restore a warbird and then flies and crashes the thing, it's not a net loss, we're just back where we started.

Not really. What has often happened in the past is that well-moneyed folk have bought highly restorable aircraft that were essentially complete but needing lots of work, and then destroyed them... so we are not back where we started, and it is a net loss.

Every time one of these aircraft crashes, we are closer to having no original ones left.

Aerozeppelin

Didn't read the whole thing, and in any case it was written in 1971 and so is around 40 years out of date... this bit was good though...

As if the warbirds aren't rare enough already, they're being wrecked at an absolutely alarming rate, because pilots aren't correctly checked out and don't have the necessary background to figure it out for themselves. Burch has so much time in so many varied types that he has had practically every emergency possible and therefore has first-hand knowledge of emergency procedures, and can also provide the normal kind of get-it-up and get-it-down instruction.

See? He gets it...