Spitfire 'Crash' at Masterton
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Australandnewzealandland
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Queensland
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
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".
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 hangar!!
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 hangar!!
Grandpa Aerotart
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'.
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'.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Rainforest
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Queensland
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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
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
Grandpa Aerotart
Indeed frothy
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Remoak
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.
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?
Retired Tiger pilot
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Club Morocco. Subic Bay. Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frothy and Chuckles
Yes I agree on landing a full 185 especially in a quartering tailwind at either Chimbu(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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Queensland
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh hell someone else dared to criticise remoak...27/09 get ready to be called purile, juvenile, infantile or senile or something-ile
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian Abraham
Originally Posted by Brian Abraham
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.
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! - 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.
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! - 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.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AerocatS2A
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
No, 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
No, just you for your stupid and unnecessary Green Eyed Monster comment.
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:
http://www.channel4.com/community/sh...tfire_Ace.html
How right he is.
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.
27/09
These types of accidents are not limited to the rich and famous
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"
If he has ABSOLUTE proof that the well heeled are buying shortcuts what has he done about it ?
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.
How right he is.
Last edited by remoak; 19th Jan 2009 at 11:02.
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.
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.