Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And it wasn't a loop..... So what was it meant to be?
A reply to Courtney Mil post #432
You said in your post #432 ...... "And it wasn't a loop".
Well, from the many video links on pprune we can see that the T7 Hunter entered from a level left turn, started fast very low down, went up as if to loop, slowed at the top as is usual .... and then descended initially – but sadly unsuccessfully - as if to complete a loop.
So what was the intended vertical manoeuvre in your words please?
You said in your post #432 ...... "And it wasn't a loop".
Well, from the many video links on pprune we can see that the T7 Hunter entered from a level left turn, started fast very low down, went up as if to loop, slowed at the top as is usual .... and then descended initially – but sadly unsuccessfully - as if to complete a loop.
So what was the intended vertical manoeuvre in your words please?
Please allow me to help CM out here.
A loop is conducted entirely wings level - from initial pull-up, through the vertical, the inverted and the pull-out, which means you start and finish on the same heading (or as close to it as most of us can manage). It is the most basic of aerobatic manoeuvres, which is why it is normally the first aerobatic taught to students.
A manoeuvre where you pull to the vertical, roll through 90 degrees and then complete a 3/4 loop to exit at 90 degrees from entry is called a quarter clover. It is very useful for positioning during displays.
It appears that the intended manoeuvre on this occasion was a quarter clover, or a modified version of same as the heading change was less than 90 degrees. However, only one person knows exactly what the intended manoeuvre was, and he is currently unable to tell us because he is still in an induced coma.
I hope this helps your understanding.
A loop is conducted entirely wings level - from initial pull-up, through the vertical, the inverted and the pull-out, which means you start and finish on the same heading (or as close to it as most of us can manage). It is the most basic of aerobatic manoeuvres, which is why it is normally the first aerobatic taught to students.
A manoeuvre where you pull to the vertical, roll through 90 degrees and then complete a 3/4 loop to exit at 90 degrees from entry is called a quarter clover. It is very useful for positioning during displays.
It appears that the intended manoeuvre on this occasion was a quarter clover, or a modified version of same as the heading change was less than 90 degrees. However, only one person knows exactly what the intended manoeuvre was, and he is currently unable to tell us because he is still in an induced coma.
I hope this helps your understanding.
Quarter clover. The roll on the way up. See post 378, thought to be his sequence does not include a loop.
Edit to add: Thanks, Fortissimo. Beat me to it.
Edit to add: Thanks, Fortissimo. Beat me to it.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 26th Aug 2015 at 14:14. Reason: Addendum.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Upper Gumtree
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Voicemail #416 and BEagle #403:
The video of the takeoff at North Weald shows quite a brisk cross wind (see the paper bags blowing past) which could even be tending to a quartering tailwind.
No wonder the takeoff is flat.
The video of the takeoff at North Weald shows quite a brisk cross wind (see the paper bags blowing past) which could even be tending to a quartering tailwind.
No wonder the takeoff is flat.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Suffolk
Age: 74
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First post so gentle please. Fast jet retired, flown the Hunter and done some display flying.
My problem is that Im on holiday in Germany, arrived day of crash, and can't get my IPad to play videos. Read all the experts and frankly confused. What did he do? Was it a quarter clover or did he just do a loop to the "left". One would probably be deliberate the other could signify he had a problem. Either way if He missed gate ht or speed he was heading to bust base ht - which he obviously did. I'm struggling with how such an experienced pilot could miss such an important gate.
However, the pilot of the 88 Abingdon F4 loop into the ground was one of mine at Valley and never worried me. Don't know anybody who hasn't bust base ht when it's been 5000 ft by thinking "never mind that was nearly gate ht" but not when doing LL aeros, its an automatic roll off the top and foxtrot Oscar.
Gratefull for any descriptions.
My problem is that Im on holiday in Germany, arrived day of crash, and can't get my IPad to play videos. Read all the experts and frankly confused. What did he do? Was it a quarter clover or did he just do a loop to the "left". One would probably be deliberate the other could signify he had a problem. Either way if He missed gate ht or speed he was heading to bust base ht - which he obviously did. I'm struggling with how such an experienced pilot could miss such an important gate.
However, the pilot of the 88 Abingdon F4 loop into the ground was one of mine at Valley and never worried me. Don't know anybody who hasn't bust base ht when it's been 5000 ft by thinking "never mind that was nearly gate ht" but not when doing LL aeros, its an automatic roll off the top and foxtrot Oscar.
Gratefull for any descriptions.
Above The Clouds, after the loss of 216's T7 XL597, the RAF deleted all gundip components from Hunter T7 aircraft.
That was 1980; WV372 served with the RAF until being transferred to the RN in 1984. It subsequently flew with FRADU until 1993, so it certainly should have had all gundip components removed.
That was 1980; WV372 served with the RAF until being transferred to the RN in 1984. It subsequently flew with FRADU until 1993, so it certainly should have had all gundip components removed.
Please allow me to help CM out here.
A loop is conducted entirely wings level - from initial pull-up, through the vertical, the inverted and the pull-out, which means you start and finish on the same heading (or as close to it as most of us can manage). It is the most basic of aerobatic manoeuvres, which is why it is normally the first aerobatic taught to students.
A manoeuvre where you pull to the vertical, roll through 90 degrees and then complete a 3/4 loop to exit at 90 degrees from entry is called a quarter clover. It is very useful for positioning during displays.
It appears that the intended manoeuvre on this occasion was a quarter clover, or a modified version of same as the heading change was less than 90 degrees. However, only one person knows exactly what the intended manoeuvre was, and he is currently unable to tell us because he is still in an induced coma.
I hope this helps your understanding.
A loop is conducted entirely wings level - from initial pull-up, through the vertical, the inverted and the pull-out, which means you start and finish on the same heading (or as close to it as most of us can manage). It is the most basic of aerobatic manoeuvres, which is why it is normally the first aerobatic taught to students.
A manoeuvre where you pull to the vertical, roll through 90 degrees and then complete a 3/4 loop to exit at 90 degrees from entry is called a quarter clover. It is very useful for positioning during displays.
It appears that the intended manoeuvre on this occasion was a quarter clover, or a modified version of same as the heading change was less than 90 degrees. However, only one person knows exactly what the intended manoeuvre was, and he is currently unable to tell us because he is still in an induced coma.
I hope this helps your understanding.
Don't know anybody who hasn't bust base ht when it's been 5000 ft by thinking "never mind that was nearly gate ht" but not when doing LL aeros, its an automatic roll off the top and foxtrot Oscar.
Odanrot,
Welcome. A brief précis of one of the videos, caveated that this is what it looked like from that particular angle. We do not know how level the camera was held so I can't be sure of angles.
Andy was seen to run in at low level and pulled up into what concensus here believes to have been a quarter clover. It did not look like he achieved the true vertical, but not by much. He rolls through probably slightly less than 90 degrees and continues to pull over the top. No one here can judge if he made the gate height or not, so I wouldn't assume that.
The pull appears to slacken slightly on the way down and the last quarter it looks like he's pulling hard, possibly very hard. Just before impact on the A27 the aircraft is about ten degrees nose up but still descending. There is a hint of what may be wing rock shortly before impact.
On impact there is a large fireball and it looks like the cockpit section detaches from the fuselage and remains slightly ahead of the majority of the fire. I could not see an ejection gun so a complete ejection sequence is also unlikely.
Any corrections welcome.
There is no evidence to indicate that he did not meet his parameters at the top and it looked like there was hot air coming from the jet pipe in the final stages, so the engine was doing something - quite what, I could not say, but possibly working.
Andy was recovered from the scene very badly injured and is currently alive, but in a medically-induced coma. There has been very little news since about his condition. Wreckage is still being recovered from the scene and there were a number of casualties and fatalities among people in cars, one or more motorcyclists and people on foot or sitting (I think) in the area.
There has been a lot of speculation about the causes and the safety of a display in that area. Until evidence other than photographs, videos and witness becomes available further comment on my behalf would not be appropriate.
Hope that kind of brings you up to speed. I assume you will have seen the news paper articles and some of the (in my opinion) slanderous statements that have appeared in the media by so called experts.
Welcome. A brief précis of one of the videos, caveated that this is what it looked like from that particular angle. We do not know how level the camera was held so I can't be sure of angles.
Andy was seen to run in at low level and pulled up into what concensus here believes to have been a quarter clover. It did not look like he achieved the true vertical, but not by much. He rolls through probably slightly less than 90 degrees and continues to pull over the top. No one here can judge if he made the gate height or not, so I wouldn't assume that.
The pull appears to slacken slightly on the way down and the last quarter it looks like he's pulling hard, possibly very hard. Just before impact on the A27 the aircraft is about ten degrees nose up but still descending. There is a hint of what may be wing rock shortly before impact.
On impact there is a large fireball and it looks like the cockpit section detaches from the fuselage and remains slightly ahead of the majority of the fire. I could not see an ejection gun so a complete ejection sequence is also unlikely.
Any corrections welcome.
There is no evidence to indicate that he did not meet his parameters at the top and it looked like there was hot air coming from the jet pipe in the final stages, so the engine was doing something - quite what, I could not say, but possibly working.
Andy was recovered from the scene very badly injured and is currently alive, but in a medically-induced coma. There has been very little news since about his condition. Wreckage is still being recovered from the scene and there were a number of casualties and fatalities among people in cars, one or more motorcyclists and people on foot or sitting (I think) in the area.
There has been a lot of speculation about the causes and the safety of a display in that area. Until evidence other than photographs, videos and witness becomes available further comment on my behalf would not be appropriate.
Hope that kind of brings you up to speed. I assume you will have seen the news paper articles and some of the (in my opinion) slanderous statements that have appeared in the media by so called experts.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 26th Aug 2015 at 14:50.
Originally Posted by Pittsextra
Regardless of this accident can you also explain the potential errors and their consequences in this type of manoeuvre? Just for the clarity of those reading the board.
My first assesment concerning the maneuver flown was, that it was a 1/4 of a clover leaf. After looking at the published graphs with the probable flightpath on this thread and the ongoing discusssion I offer another version for discussion. I asked myself, what kind of maneuver would I do at that point, and came up with neither a loop nor a 1/4 Clover leaf, I would have done just a low pass along the line. But the task might have been not to cross the A27 at that low altitude, requiring a pullup followed by a descent and some small heading change. I would have done a Barrel Roll type maneuver there, but never a 1/4 Clover Leaf.
I watched some videos from former displays of A.H. in the hunter and Jet Provost on youtube, all available on a google search, and observed most repositionings were performed by some Barrel Roll type maneuvers. I found none pure Clover leaf type maneuver, but that might also be due to the fact, that the top of such maneuver is the point farthest away from the action and thus not recorded or edited out of the clip.
In the assumed flightpath the Jet comes in low and fast, turns somewhat to the right and pulls up, like the initial part of a Barrel Roll to the left. At that point prior pullup the airfield might be hidden behind the tree line. For a Barrel Roll type positioning the turn to the pullup point was too late, which the pilot might have recognized during the pullup. In order to reduce the forward travel he took the maneuver higher and further off to the left and ended slow on top, way off the final course and unprepared for the following descent. The reorientation to the intended flightpath while still inverted lead to an unplanned and unsafe increase in descent rate.
But sure it is pure speculation from my side. I have never flown the Hawk, all my flight time is in Phantoms.
I watched some videos from former displays of A.H. in the hunter and Jet Provost on youtube, all available on a google search, and observed most repositionings were performed by some Barrel Roll type maneuvers. I found none pure Clover leaf type maneuver, but that might also be due to the fact, that the top of such maneuver is the point farthest away from the action and thus not recorded or edited out of the clip.
In the assumed flightpath the Jet comes in low and fast, turns somewhat to the right and pulls up, like the initial part of a Barrel Roll to the left. At that point prior pullup the airfield might be hidden behind the tree line. For a Barrel Roll type positioning the turn to the pullup point was too late, which the pilot might have recognized during the pullup. In order to reduce the forward travel he took the maneuver higher and further off to the left and ended slow on top, way off the final course and unprepared for the following descent. The reorientation to the intended flightpath while still inverted lead to an unplanned and unsafe increase in descent rate.
But sure it is pure speculation from my side. I have never flown the Hawk, all my flight time is in Phantoms.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
deltahotel
ATC, Beagle. What's gundip?
ATC, Beagle. What's gundip?
Probably not if it's likely to feed further speculation.
Sure let the AAIB make a report and let time pass while we wait but I am at a loss as to why you avoid what is a pretty fundamental point.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pittsextra
I'm not too sure of your issue. You are happy to discuss various elements that relate to the Hunter but are unhappy to discuss elements that relate to that manoeuvre.
Regardless of this accident can you also explain the potential errors and their consequences in this type of manoeuvre? Just for the clarity of those reading the board.
I'm not too sure of your issue. You are happy to discuss various elements that relate to the Hunter but are unhappy to discuss elements that relate to that manoeuvre.
Regardless of this accident can you also explain the potential errors and their consequences in this type of manoeuvre? Just for the clarity of those reading the board.
I don't have an issue, Pittsextra, but I am not about to compile a list of possible errors and their consequences that the uninformed or speculative out there might use as a checklist to draw inappropriate conclusions from.
If you are capable of describing the detail and dangers of a barrel roll in the 1999 Hawk Crash thread, I'm sure you could compile the list if you so wish.
If you are capable of describing the detail and dangers of a barrel roll in the 1999 Hawk Crash thread, I'm sure you could compile the list if you so wish.
ΔH, Avon-powered Hunters were prone to engine surge when the guns were fired, due to ingestion of muzzle gases. The only solution was to 'dip' the fuel supplied to the engine whilst the guns were firing, which briefly reduced the fuel supply during the half second or so during which the trigger was pressed.
Probably only a problem if all 4 guns on the SS Hunters were fired together, but fitted to all Avon-powered Hunters nonetheless.
Hunters whose guns were no longer used clearly didn't need the system and many had it disconnected under mod 1321. But following the loss of XL597, there was concern that the rotting old wiring might still be capable of interfering with the engine fuel supply, so the design authority required that all components and wiring associated with gundip were to be removed.
Courtney Mil will probably remember the rusty old knobs and tits on the F-4 centre pedestal left over from mud-moving days, which we air defenders never used. Apart from one chap, that is, who moved something and lost his tanks, or similar. From then on, the edict was "Don't touch anything!" on the centre pedestal, apart from the centre station selector for the gun.
Leaving old wiring in jets is never a good idea!
Probably only a problem if all 4 guns on the SS Hunters were fired together, but fitted to all Avon-powered Hunters nonetheless.
Hunters whose guns were no longer used clearly didn't need the system and many had it disconnected under mod 1321. But following the loss of XL597, there was concern that the rotting old wiring might still be capable of interfering with the engine fuel supply, so the design authority required that all components and wiring associated with gundip were to be removed.
Courtney Mil will probably remember the rusty old knobs and tits on the F-4 centre pedestal left over from mud-moving days, which we air defenders never used. Apart from one chap, that is, who moved something and lost his tanks, or similar. From then on, the edict was "Don't touch anything!" on the centre pedestal, apart from the centre station selector for the gun.
Leaving old wiring in jets is never a good idea!
Well if someone else posts it saves the handbagging I got when I first posted!! That aside it might lead to a more obvious point than the GLOC, position of flaps, thrust and other less obvious chatter seen so far.. Above the clouds. I'm sorry of course it was a 1/4 clover let's not be silly
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Above the clouds. I'm sorry of course it was a 1/4 clover let's not be silly
On a related note, LOTS of people were equally certain as you (and repeatedly stated) that the Thunderbirds F-16 ejection and crash at Mountain Home in 2004 was due to missing an altitude gate while performing a loop. And that is completely wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alo_XWCqNUQ
Last edited by KenV; 26th Aug 2015 at 16:23. Reason: added link
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Courtney Mil will probably remember the rusty old knobs and tits on the F-4 centre pedestal left over from mud-moving days, which we air defenders never used. Apart from one chap, that is, who moved something and lost his tanks, or similar.
I was the FA and told Ops XX was RTB Charlie fit - "no, he's Delta", said they. 'not any more", said I.....
IIRC they checked they rest of the fleet - they were in the only jet where the wires hadn't been cut IAW a mod......
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pittsextra
Well if someone else posts it saves the handbagging I got when I first posted!! That aside it might lead to a more obvious point than the GLOC, position of flaps, thrust and other less obvious chatter seen so far.
Originally Posted by Pittsextra
Its a badly executed figure and flown as such was always going to loose height if he continued to pull, which ultimately he does all the way to the buffet and subsequent stall.
Badly executed figure. Please offer your aeros background on which you base that claim and it what way it was badly executed.
Was always going to lose height. Sorry, a statement based on what?
Which he does all the way to the buffet. How do you deduce he was in the buffet?
And subsequent stall. Again, show us how you know for a fact that he was in a stall.
You use those unproven assumptions to make a statement linked to Brown's assertion that it was the pilot's fault and you are then surprised that someone here picks you up on it? That wasn't a handbagging, it was you being, quite correctly, shown that your statement was unacceptable, unfounded and unwelcome.
As a reminder this is
A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.
At the very least, don't whine about it when someone challenges your accusations against a former, highly professional, former military pilot.