Spitfire F-AZJS crash in France

[Niner Lima Charlie]

The pilot at the controls was Cédric Ruet – I’m informed he is safe.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=196094

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-uQqXKBYAg

[snapper1]

I think the spectators who were helping to lift the aircraft were very lucky there was no fire.

[jack11111]

I think I see the right tire blow out...anyone concur?

[Cirrussy]

What a waste.

[clareprop]

I think I see the right tire blow out...anyone concur?

I think it's the propeller blade striking the ground.

[TheChitterneFlyer]

That's a whole lot of horsepower to keep under control during the initial takeoff roll and a wise man would feed it in gently.

[PDR1]

Grass and a Spitfire that size don't seem to mix well


Oh - what size spitfire would mix better?

PDR

[PDR1]

Although they came in different weights, IFAIK they were all much of a muchness for size (other than the very small variations of clipped-wing and extended-wing varients).

PDR

[treadigraph]

The Griffon Spits are about three feet longer than the early Merlin aircraft and weigh over 2000lbs more empty. The ultimate development, the Seafire 47, weighed twice as much as the Mk1.

[PDR1]

I'm aware of this, but does that three feet make any significant difference to the sort of grass they mix with?

PDR

[treadigraph]

IFAIK they were all much of a muchness for size

Three feet longer is 10%... that's not really a muchness...

I believe the longer engine, mounted further forward, angled slightly downwards and with a lower thrust line mean the Griffons have less prop tip clearance (with slightly shorter blades than the MkIX), so a rough or soft grass runway might be less forgiving than it would for a Merlin aircraft.

[Philoctetes]

Rough surface = flexing oleos + bit extra over-rotation = prop strike.

[megan]

The higher powered Spits had a reputation when it came to the torque they produced. The Mk XIV recommends the use of +7 boost for take off because of the strong tendency to swing to the right and to crab in the initial stages of the take off run. Tyre wear is severe if much power is used. The maximum of +12 boost may be used if carrying a heavy load.

It would seem from the video that he allowed the tail to get too high, elevator is neutral and the stick is not pulled back until after the prop hit the ground. Prop digging into the ground then forces the nose left, rather than to the right that torque would produce.

Spit pilots had a name for such prop strikes, "Pecking", and was not unusual.

[Chuck Glider]

Not saying it's relevant to this incident but I knew a guy who flew all manner of RAF machines who told of climbing into a new Spitfire to deliver it somewhere. Started up, taxied out, lined up, opened the throttle and did the usual of kicking in rudder to counter the swing...only to then realise that the Griffon turned the other way!

[Geriaviator]

An explanation for this sad incident may be found in the excellent talk on Handling Qualities of WW2 Fighters given in March 2004 by Dave Southwood to the Flight Test Group of the Royal Aeronautical Society. Mr. Southwood began by explaining that older aircraft, such as those with tailwheels or powerful piston engines, require different handling skills to those of today although the ability of current pilots is as high as that of previous generations.

The engine torque and propeller slipstream produce considerable effects and tailwheel aircraft are inherently unstable on the ground. Probably the greatest vice of the Spitfire is that it is very 'tail light' due to a short longitudinal moment arm of the CG from the mainwheels …. sharp brake inputs or large power increases without full aft stick inevitably cause the tail to leave the ground …

A particular problem can occur during engine checks at high power. The thrust line is above the mainwheels and produces a powerful nose down pitching moment that is opposed by the moment of the CG about the mainwheels and the aerodynamic down force on the tailplane and elevator due to propwash and any headwind component. If the tail should rise, closing the throttle will reduce the problematic nose down moment due to the thrust. However, it will also reduce the propwash over the tailplane and elevators, thus reducing the aerodynamic tail down moment and often making the tail rise even further.

Unfortunately, once the tail has started to rise in this situation there is often no recovery.
A friend had a similar experience with the RR Spitfire XIV which he brought to our air display about 35 years ago. At that time I was de facto airfield manager (involved clearing up, driving digger and mower etc, all unpaid of course) and went ballistic when I spotted a line of foot-long slashes down our new runway surface. Who the ****** drove the tracked digger down the runway, I demanded. Turns out that my friend had unknowingly tipped the Spitfire prop when he opened up on takeoff, each slash being from a tip of its five-bladed prop. Its performance was not affected.

[Less Hair]

Is it true that this was the very first flight in this Spitfire of this pilot?

[treadigraph]

Less Hair, I've seen that mentioned on another site; supposedly he flew the Sea Fury to the event.

Geriaviator, is it really 13 years since that talk by Dave?

[Stitchbitch]

In this day and age why are people still flying high performance 'warbird' aircraft in cloth hats? Surely a carbon fibre shelled 'hard' helmet with a polycarbonate visor would provide much better protection during a roll over like this, or during a simple wheels up.

[Geriaviator]

Yes Treadigraph, I'm afraid it is all of 13 yrs, March 18 2004 to be precise. And if you think that has gone quickly, you'll find the next 13 will go even faster, and as for my last 13 it seems like 13 months :eek:

[megan]

Just to flesh out mySpit pilots had a name for such prop strikes, "Pecking"From "Spitfire - The History", Morgan & Shacklady.

The Mk. VIII was fitted with the Merlin 60 Series engines which resulted in a longer engine cowling (the first of the "long nose" aircraft) and there was a tendency for pilots on landing to misjudge their attitude to the runway, and allowed the nose to tilt forward and then drop back to complete the landing run. Inevitably, the tilt forward resulted in the propeller striking the ground and damaged the tips. This was known as ‘pecking’ or ‘bogging’. JG246 was sent to Rotol Airscrews for installation and trials of a cropped propeller to determine how short the blades could be without their characteristics being drastically altered. At 8ft 3in length there was a reduction in overall performance and at 7ft 1 lin this reduction became pronounced. A normal prop was of 10ft 9in diameter.

The results of the experiments were relayed to the service Maintenance Units and they did enable engineering personnel to ascertain if an aeroplane with a broken or damaged propeller could be air ferried for repair.The very first Spit (prototype) was destroyed in a "pecking" incident, having flown 151:30 hours, the pilot suffering injuries that later proved fatal.

[Geriaviator]

The RR Spitfire mentioned above and the MkXIX nosing over in the film clip have Griffon engines, bigger and heavier than the Merlin and so accentuating the problem.

[treadigraph]

Not a good week for Spitfires, the newly restored TRIX NH341 wound up on its belly at Sywell yesterday. No damage to the crew thankfully and the landing seems to have minimised damage to the airframe. Sounds like the gear wouldn't lock down.

[IcePaq]

It looks like there might have been some wet spots causing the ground to get super soft.

[Flying_Anorak]

Not much evidence of mud on the walls of the tyres which you'd usually see if it had sunk into the ground.....

[currawong]

Watch the video with the sound on.

The problem seems pretty obvious.

[megan]

Seems remarkably unscathed.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=254139&d=1497636070
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/19105954_1872958336298306_1497863351098151213_n_zpsjfn9rmfi. jpg~original

[treadigraph]

Indeed, the collapse must have been very low speed. Apparently an engine inspection revealed no problems and other damage was very minor/cosmetic; it was fitted with a replacement prop and ferried to Duxford for further attention by ARCO just a few days later.

Interesting point made elsewhere; Spitfire undercarriage collapses/problems always seem to be the two-seaters.

[treadigraph]

Just to round this thread off, good to hear that F-AZJS flew again at Duxford earlier this week after a rebuild by the Aircraft Restoration Company - may she remain airworthy for many years to come.

[tcasblue]

For those well versed in the French language, a final report......
https://www.bea.aero/uploads/tx_elydbrapports/BEA2017-0331_addendum.pdf

The next post is Google Translate with no attempt by me for any corrections or read through prior to posting.

However, the BEA site did have a single paragraph summary in English.....

"The pilot stated that he had perhaps braked involuntarily during the takeoff roll, by using the rudder pedal at a time when he was increasing power. The aeroplane tilted forward onto its nose and then flipped over onto its back"

Perhaps it is one of those types where it is difficult to input rudder pedal without applying some brake(or one has to ensure that feet are properly positioned to ensure this doesn't happen).

[tcasblue]

Supermarine Spitfire PR Mk XIX crash
registered F-AZJS
occurred on June 11, 2017
in Longuyon - Villette (54)
Time Around 3:00 p.m. (1)
Private Operator
Type of flight General aviation
Person on board Pilot
Consequences and damages
A seriously injured person on the ground,
a person on the ground slightly injured,
heavily damaged aircraft
Addendum: A clarification, relating to the transmission of instructions by the Flight Director,
been made to the report. This version, the official reference text, cancels and replaces the
previous (May 2018).
(1) Unless specified
contrary, the hours
appearing in
this report are
expressed in
local hour.
1 - FLIGHT PROCEDURE
On the day of the accident, the pilot flew a Hawker Sea Fury aircraft from
Dijon Darois aerodrome (21) to Longuyon - Villette aerodrome,
in the company of a friend who performs the flight aboard a Spitfire, a single-seat fighter
of the second world war. They explain that the purpose of this flight is to have lunch
on the aerodrome with the president of the "Lorraine Borders" flying club, which organizes
that day an open house for the flying club. For the return flight to Dijon,
pilots change planes. The pilot of the accident must then perform his first
flight on Spitfire, while his friend will fly in Sea Fury.
He performs the pre-flight inspection, starts the engine and performs the engine tests without
notice an anomaly. He entered and went up runway 28, lined up and then started
take-off roll. He explains that when he puts the plane in line from
flight, he looks at the dashboard to increase the power to 6 boost (2). When he
look outside again, the plane has started to tip forward, the propeller is touching
the ground then the plane passes on its back. Pieces of propeller blades are thrown into
the public and two people are injured.
The staff in charge of the security of the open day, followed by
members of the public, immediately walked over to the plane to rescue the pilot.
Unable to extract it from the cockpit, he appealed to the public to help lift
the plane. Once the pilot has been taken care of by the organization's medical staff,
a fire extinguisher was used on the aircraft as a precaution.

2 - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
2.1 Pilot information
The pilot had received several briefings by his friend who owned the Spitfire in preparation for
his release on the plane, including one just before the crash flight. He explains that he put
the aircraft in flight line with the same cadence as for the Sea Fury, and it was done
surprise because the Spitfire is more responsive.
He is a weapons aircraft pilot and had 6,100 flight hours on the day of the accident, including
approximately 1,500 in light aviation. He flies regularly on vintage planes
(North American T-6 and T-28, Hawker Sea Fury) and has a total of around 100 flight hours
on these types of planes. In the three months preceding the accident, he had flown 7 hours
on T-6 and four on Sea Fury.
2.2 Release conditions on Spitfire
Flying a Spitfire requires only the SEP class rating, and there is no
no specific authorization to fly classic planes. Drop it on
a new type of SEP-class airplane, whether single-seater or not, is not
regulated.
2.3 Open day
2.3.1 Nature of open days
The file submitted by the flying club to the prefecture for the open days,
including the one organized on the day of the accident, provided for first flights on a plane
and on ULM. Static exhibitions were also planned. The file does not
did not mention a flight demonstration, although posters depicting the
Spitfire or Sea Fury are a demonstration of ancient aircraft. Pictures
and videos of the open days of previous years found on the internet
also show flying presentations of old planes (including the Spitfire and
Sea Fury) and aerobatic planes, including aerobatic figures.


2 - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
2.1 Pilot information
The pilot had received several briefings by his friend who owned the Spitfire in preparation for
his release on the plane, including one just before the crash flight. He explains that he put
the aircraft in flight line with the same cadence as for the Sea Fury, and it was done
surprise because the Spitfire is more responsive.
He is a weapons aircraft pilot and had 6,100 flight hours on the day of the accident, including
approximately 1,500 in light aviation. He flies regularly on vintage planes
(North American T-6 and T-28, Hawker Sea Fury) and has a total of around 100 flight hours
on these types of planes. In the three months preceding the accident, he had flown 7 hours
on T-6 and four on Sea Fury.
2.2 Release conditions on Spitfire
Flying a Spitfire requires only the SEP class rating, and there is no
no specific authorization to fly classic planes. Drop it on
a new type of SEP-class airplane, whether single-seater or not, is not
regulated.
2.3 Open day
2.3.1 Nature of open days
The file submitted by the flying club to the prefecture for the open days,
including the one organized on the day of the accident, provided for first flights on a plane
and on ULM. Static exhibitions were also planned. The file does not
did not mention a flight demonstration, although posters depicting the
Spitfire or Sea Fury are a demonstration of ancient aircraft. Pictures
and videos of the open days of previous years found on the internet
also show flying presentations of old planes (including the Spitfire and
Sea Fury) and aerobatic planes, including aerobatic figures.

2 - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
2.1 Pilot information
The pilot had received several briefings by his friend who owned the Spitfire in preparation for
his release on the plane, including one just before the crash flight. He explains that he put
the aircraft in flight line with the same cadence as for the Sea Fury, and it was done
surprise because the Spitfire is more responsive.
He is a weapons aircraft pilot and had 6,100 flight hours on the day of the accident, including
approximately 1,500 in light aviation. He flies regularly on vintage planes
(North American T-6 and T-28, Hawker Sea Fury) and has a total of around 100 flight hours
on these types of planes. In the three months preceding the accident, he had flown 7 hours
on T-6 and four on Sea Fury.
2.2 Release conditions on Spitfire
Flying a Spitfire requires only the SEP class rating, and there is no
no specific authorization to fly classic planes. Drop it on
a new type of SEP-class airplane, whether single-seater or not, is not
regulated.
2.3 Open day
2.3.1 Nature of open days
The file submitted by the flying club to the prefecture for the open days,
including the one organized on the day of the accident, provided for first flights on a plane
and on ULM. Static exhibitions were also planned. The file does not
did not mention a flight demonstration, although posters depicting the
Spitfire or Sea Fury are a demonstration of ancient aircraft. Pictures
and videos of the open days of previous years found on the internet
also show flying presentations of old planes (including the Spitfire and
Sea Fury) and aerobatic planes, including aerobatic figures.


During an aeronautical event which is the subject of a public appeal such as open days of a flying club or an aerial event, the risk damage to people on the ground is higher than usual for two reasons: aircraft movements are more numerous therefore the probability of occurrence of a accident is greater, and the number of people present on or around the aerodrome is more important therefore the probability that a third on the ground is injured by accident is also greater. Specific regulatory requirements aimed at preserving public safety with regard to the consequences of an accident air, are intended only for air events due to the potentially higher level of risk of thefts carried out in this context. Previous editions obviously featured in-flight presentations the nature of which would allow the authorities to consider them as manifestations aerial. In this case the security could be reinforced: The public location would be the subject of a safety review due to its proximity to the runway; ˆ the Flight Director would be responsible for all aircraft present and could ensure that pilots have the required experience to participate in a demonstration, which was not the case with the pilot of the Spitfire. The presence of fire extinguishers and medical personnel may have helped to minimize consequences of the accident. The presence of the public on the runway and around the plane accident, which proved to be decisive in rescuing the pilot in the absence of firefighters, however, increased the public's exposure to the risk. The presence of firefighters on site, even if it is not required by regulations, can thus be a valuable asset in the event of an accident.