Mike Lithgow BAC 1-11 crash site, 1963
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the modifications made to the 1-11 as a result of the 'SHG crash was a redesign of the nose from a rather bulbous affair to a more sleek and pointed shape.
Can anyone advise as to the reason for this?
As the aircraft already on the production line were modified seemingly without major rebuilding I assume the changes only involved the nose cone and the panels immediately behind.
Does anyone have any verifiable information as to what happened to 'SJB after its heavy landing at Wisley? Were major portions of the structure used in the construction of 'STJ, if not when was the airframe broken up?
Can anyone advise as to the reason for this?
As the aircraft already on the production line were modified seemingly without major rebuilding I assume the changes only involved the nose cone and the panels immediately behind.
Does anyone have any verifiable information as to what happened to 'SJB after its heavy landing at Wisley? Were major portions of the structure used in the construction of 'STJ, if not when was the airframe broken up?
Quote from moonrakerz:
Several years later my father's brother, who worked on the farm containing the crash site, ploughed up a pitot head assembly from the aircraft. He gave this to my father, and for years it was in our garden shed - unfortunately it must have been thrown away after my father's death.
[Unquote]
Welcome ! What an interesting tale.
Don't know if you're a pilot, but it's probable that either Mike Lithgow (or his copilot) would have been giving close attention to the data from that pitot probe throughout his efforts to recover from the deep stall.
Several years later my father's brother, who worked on the farm containing the crash site, ploughed up a pitot head assembly from the aircraft. He gave this to my father, and for years it was in our garden shed - unfortunately it must have been thrown away after my father's death.
[Unquote]
Welcome ! What an interesting tale.
Don't know if you're a pilot, but it's probable that either Mike Lithgow (or his copilot) would have been giving close attention to the data from that pitot probe throughout his efforts to recover from the deep stall.
Last edited by Chris Scott; 21st Nov 2008 at 14:08.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from Chris Scott
Don't know if you're a pilot
[unquote]
Far from it, I am (was) a submariner, with just an interest in aviation. We did have some very big rockets on board though !
I wish that I had kept track of that pitot head, I would have given it to the museum at Weybridge or some other good home.
Don't know if you're a pilot
[unquote]
Far from it, I am (was) a submariner, with just an interest in aviation. We did have some very big rockets on board though !
I wish that I had kept track of that pitot head, I would have given it to the museum at Weybridge or some other good home.
Originally Posted by philbky
One of the modifications made to the 1-11 as a result of the 'SHG crash was a redesign of the nose from a rather bulbous affair to a more sleek and pointed shape.
Can anyone advise as to the reason for this?
As the aircraft already on the production line were modified seemingly without major rebuilding I assume the changes only involved the nose cone and the panels immediately behind.
Does anyone have any verifiable information as to what happened to 'SJB after its heavy landing at Wisley? Were major portions of the structure used in the construction of 'STJ, if not when was the airframe broken up?
Can anyone advise as to the reason for this?
As the aircraft already on the production line were modified seemingly without major rebuilding I assume the changes only involved the nose cone and the panels immediately behind.
Does anyone have any verifiable information as to what happened to 'SJB after its heavy landing at Wisley? Were major portions of the structure used in the construction of 'STJ, if not when was the airframe broken up?
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Too Far North
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. I think the Caravelle uses a flight engineer? With no thrust reversers, I doubt it could operate schedules into a short field like Jersey.
The last one that I saw there would have been in the early 1990's.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember a Caravelle at Manchester in the '60s that went off the end of 24 on landing and ended up mired in the mud. We passed the end of 06 in our school bus on the Wilmslow - Altrincham rd in those days (where there were gates which were closed for 06 arriveals) and the Caravelle was so far off the end it was almost up to Altrincham road!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ex Brooklands now Shropshire
Age: 62
Posts: 129
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 1-11's bulbous nose was replaced with the sleaker pointy one as part of the "Drag reduction package" this package included the changes to the wing.
This has just been told to me by one of the Aerodynamics team involved.
Cheers
This has just been told to me by one of the Aerodynamics team involved.
Cheers
It sounds as if the aircraft didn't perform as planned on the drawing board, necessitating changes to the airframe. A more pointed nose makes sense in this regard, ideally you want as little change of direction to the airflow as possible, but then I'm no aerodynamics engineer 
.
.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks M5dnd. Whilst this is probably part,or even the whole of the answer, publications at the time link the redesign to the accident to 'SHG.
Can't quite see how a deep stall and the shape of the nose tie in so the publications could be wrong or BAC may have used the accident as an excuse to amend the design and improve the aerodynamics.
Can't quite see how a deep stall and the shape of the nose tie in so the publications could be wrong or BAC may have used the accident as an excuse to amend the design and improve the aerodynamics.
Quote from philbky:
"Does anyone have any verifiable information as to what happened to 'SJB after its heavy landing at Wisley? Were major portions of the structure used in the construction of 'STJ, if not when was the airframe broken up?"
My memory that parts of JB were reported as being used in G-ASVT (c/n 095) which I think was never completed.
"Does anyone have any verifiable information as to what happened to 'SJB after its heavy landing at Wisley? Were major portions of the structure used in the construction of 'STJ, if not when was the airframe broken up?"
My memory that parts of JB were reported as being used in G-ASVT (c/n 095) which I think was never completed.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That could well be a possibility. 095, which was never completed even though it was registered as G-ASVT, is listed in many production lists as a 200AT.
The only definitions of this series number I've ever managed to find have been seemingly humourous - either 200 Airframe Trainer or 200 Apprentice Trainer.
Anyone one have anything to add?
The only definitions of this series number I've ever managed to find have been seemingly humourous - either 200 Airframe Trainer or 200 Apprentice Trainer.
Anyone one have anything to add?
I was apprentice at hurn 1969 to1973.
I recall a forward fuselage north of 427 hangar with the c/n 006 I think.
I believe this was G-ASJB.
I think the centre torque box was used in G-ASTJ, but not much else.
Nearly 40 years ago now, but it's amazing the things that stay in the memory!
Happy days.
I recall a forward fuselage north of 427 hangar with the c/n 006 I think.
I believe this was G-ASJB.
I think the centre torque box was used in G-ASTJ, but not much else.
Nearly 40 years ago now, but it's amazing the things that stay in the memory!
Happy days.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: bishop's stortford
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One-Eleven crashes
With regard to the tragic loss of G-ASHG at Cratt Hill near Chicklade on Oct 22, 1963 the aircraft was definitely written off. It descended from 18,000 feet in 80 seconds and was destroyed. The accident was caused by a deep stall, the remedy for which was the replacement of servo-tab activated elevators by fully-powered elevators, an alteration to the wing leading edge and the installation of a stick pusher. The alteration to the shape of the nose radome was a separate issue.
G-ASJB’s crash at Wisley on March 18, 1964 was caused by pilot error. This One-Eleven was also written off and the fuselage was sent to Hurn. BAC for a long time maintained the fiction that it was being rebuilt as a BAC owned demonstrator G-ASVT (c/n 095) but it never appeared.
G-ASJD was specially modified with the new powered elevator and modified wing leading edge to take on the stalling tests. In order that the aircraft could recover in the event of a deep stall it was also fitted with a large tail parachute and the reverse thrust actuators were altered so that they could provide upward thrust in the air and thus provide a nose down pitch.
On Aug 20, 1964 while in engaged in stalling trials the pilot Peter Baker concluded that ‘SJD was in a deep stall and deployed the parachute, also using the specially adapted reverse thrust. However the aircraft’s pitch did not drastically change and as the aircraft was being dragged down by the pull of the parchute, the pilot engaged full flap and full power which allowed a wheels-up landing near Tilshead. The reason that the parachute and the “reverse” did not alter the pitch was because the One-Eleven was not stalled. Had the parachute been jettisoned it could have flown back to Wisley. The pilot had obtained a false impression of the One-Eleven being in a stall. G-ASJD was dismantled and taken back to Hurn where it was re-assembled and flew again.
Formal Crash Reports exist for G-ASHG and G-ASJD, but ‘SJB is only mentioned in a digest of 1964 incidents. Those wishing to see photos of the crashes might wish to look at the book I wrote on the BAC One-Eleven.
G-ASJB’s crash at Wisley on March 18, 1964 was caused by pilot error. This One-Eleven was also written off and the fuselage was sent to Hurn. BAC for a long time maintained the fiction that it was being rebuilt as a BAC owned demonstrator G-ASVT (c/n 095) but it never appeared.
G-ASJD was specially modified with the new powered elevator and modified wing leading edge to take on the stalling tests. In order that the aircraft could recover in the event of a deep stall it was also fitted with a large tail parachute and the reverse thrust actuators were altered so that they could provide upward thrust in the air and thus provide a nose down pitch.
On Aug 20, 1964 while in engaged in stalling trials the pilot Peter Baker concluded that ‘SJD was in a deep stall and deployed the parachute, also using the specially adapted reverse thrust. However the aircraft’s pitch did not drastically change and as the aircraft was being dragged down by the pull of the parchute, the pilot engaged full flap and full power which allowed a wheels-up landing near Tilshead. The reason that the parachute and the “reverse” did not alter the pitch was because the One-Eleven was not stalled. Had the parachute been jettisoned it could have flown back to Wisley. The pilot had obtained a false impression of the One-Eleven being in a stall. G-ASJD was dismantled and taken back to Hurn where it was re-assembled and flew again.
Formal Crash Reports exist for G-ASHG and G-ASJD, but ‘SJB is only mentioned in a digest of 1964 incidents. Those wishing to see photos of the crashes might wish to look at the book I wrote on the BAC One-Eleven.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Warminster
Age: 82
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have the real story leading to the loss of my aircraft & work mates that Tuesday, I haven't told it to many people as it is still very difficult for me to cope with.
John.
John.
Ex Hurn App 1960s.
John.
I would love to hear more.
I was Hurn Apprentice 1969 to 1973.
My father was a flight shed inspector when the prototype crashed. He was still working on the last Viscounts at the time.
John.
I would love to hear more.
I was Hurn Apprentice 1969 to 1973.
My father was a flight shed inspector when the prototype crashed. He was still working on the last Viscounts at the time.
HG Crash
B Trubshaw's book does cover the 111 development in reasonable detail and also hints at some of the deficiences in the original elevator system.
In fact he was quite critical of the initial handling as were other BAC TP's.
The accident report (and wire readouts) are printed in the book as an appendix as is his detailed paper on the "Super Stall".
The VC10 had already flown at this time (powered elevator) and it was at a time when there were several new "T Tail" commercial aircraft being developed.
The VC10 had a much wider engine compartment and fully powered elevators and does not appear to have caused great concerns during testing with the greater area of the engines possibly assisting "pitch down" when the airflow was from below as the attitude changed approaching the stall.
It was also a period of quite significant design changes that were not fully covered in the certification regulations of the time and therefore were true pioneering steps forward having only scale wind tunnel tests to go on.
Trubshaw (who was not the CTP at the time and was occupied on the VC10) hints that "it should never have happened" and it seems to have prompted much better "information sharing" for the future.
In fact he was quite critical of the initial handling as were other BAC TP's.
The accident report (and wire readouts) are printed in the book as an appendix as is his detailed paper on the "Super Stall".
The VC10 had already flown at this time (powered elevator) and it was at a time when there were several new "T Tail" commercial aircraft being developed.
The VC10 had a much wider engine compartment and fully powered elevators and does not appear to have caused great concerns during testing with the greater area of the engines possibly assisting "pitch down" when the airflow was from below as the attitude changed approaching the stall.
It was also a period of quite significant design changes that were not fully covered in the certification regulations of the time and therefore were true pioneering steps forward having only scale wind tunnel tests to go on.
Trubshaw (who was not the CTP at the time and was occupied on the VC10) hints that "it should never have happened" and it seems to have prompted much better "information sharing" for the future.