Thank you NoD, that makes a lot of sense.

Either way, no one plans to fly a plane into the ground so there is always something that will have happened, airframe, engine, medical, time will tell

im no expert here but 2 things have occurred to me

the lack of a a running engine suggests that either the aerobatics caused a fuel cutoff in the carb, or that the plane had simply run out of fuel

the fact there was no explosion suggests the latter.

however, something was clearly wrong as a moth should be more than capable of landing safely with no engine, rather than plummeting, unless it had been stalled really badly

Holes in a cheese lining up is usually the problem....

I don't know the stall characteristics of a TM, I expect they are not so very docile but should not pose a problem for an experienced aerobatics pilot, however engine failure during a deep stall could perhaps be a lethal combination?

I have never heard the term 'deep stall' used in connection with a biplane. A deep stall (also known as a 'super-stall') is surely the province of T-tailed jet liners with rear-mounted engines ie 727/DC-9/BAC 1-11.

I really hope that most people currently speculating about the cause of the crash are NOT pilots themselves. If they are I will be extremely worried.

Intercepted, Its obvious to me and I imagine others would back me up that the people speculating on this thread have no experience of losing an engine in a Tigermoth.
Those that have will know what I mean.

Very sad news. Tigermoths like any other aeroplanes can crash. They have a certain amount of "crunchability" that can obsorb some of the force, but when it comes down to it, your survival chances are down to luck!

Speculation is all very well, but who knows what happened as yet. They are pretty docile and usually pedictable .... but circumstances can conspire!

SS

What is the problem with losing an engine in a TM?

Come on chaps, please give the speculation on causes a rest at least until we're assured the second guy is in the clear.

With regard to the danger of aerobatics; it IS more dangerous than normal flight because of the extra care that needs to be taken. You need to be cognisant not only of your weight but of where in your balance range you are (Your spin recovery may require different technique at the rear of the range vs the front). Your G limit will be different for different weights. Your aircraft may be unfamiliar or may require different inputs for a manuever you already know well but in a different aircraft. Your passenger may or may not be fully briefed on evacuation and parachute use for your particular aircraft. Etc etc...

The point is that the extra stuff to consider becomes extra 'gotcha' factors that would otherwise not figure in a normal cross country flight. Done properly and taken seriously, you can minimise the risk. Even if you do though, there could always be that fatigue crack or manufacturing fault that gets you. A safety factor of adequate height will give you the best chance. We don't do these things because they are easy, but becuase they are hard.

This is not speculation on the cause of the accident, as the aircraft should have been revoverable with or without power.
The fuel pickup on a Tiger is fixed (the tank in the upper centre section is the only tank) and if the aircraft is in a sustained attitude that allows gravity to draw fuel to an area away from it then fuel starvation can result. It does not use a weighted flop tube or multiple pickups.
A fuel situation of less than around 1/3 of a tank can allow this to happen. 1/4 of a tank is critical.

To all you hacks out there: This will not have caused the accident, merely the enigine cut on the way down.

Isn't this what IO540 is asking though? Surely I'm not the only one following this thread now wondering what was alluded to earlier regarding moth engine failures? I would have thought with correct handling the aircraft would be safe with the engine out, I've certainly read of a number of forced landings after engine failure on the type.

I'm not relating this in any way to this accident, but am interested to know what hatzflyer meant, it seems to read as 'well you should know already an engine failure in a moth is a big deal', well I'm a pilot and I don't know that and I'm sure others are wondering along the same lines. OK it's a draggy bi-plane, I'm sure an engine out is an emergency situation and time would be short, but what is it we are supposed to know? As hatzflyer obviously has experienced the situation by inference, it must be recoverable no?

**please note this post is not discussing this particular accident, simply the handling of the TM and as far as I know there is no evidence to support the engine failed or a failed engine was responsible for this particular accident**

How do we know that the engine had stopped?

We don't hence why I said I was not relating the post to the accident and I guess why Fleetflyer posted an explanation for why the engine appeared to be failing according to eyewitnesses. There doesn't appear to be any evidence at all that the engine stopped causing the accident.

Which is why I wanted clarification of hatzflyer's post:

hoodie - eyewitness accounts in the newspaper report say the engine was out.

as for the fuel tank, i thought the centre section one was just the emergency gravity tank, and that there was a main, pumped, tank in the fuselage? correct me if im wrong

Yes, draggy biplane, and designed before the handling we're used to with today's planes, was established, and largely standardized. Though I have not flown a Moth in nearly 30 years, I recall that when you pull the power back in flight, they slow down fast. This is coupled with no stall warning system, and not the most "feel" in the flight controls I have ever experienced. Most of my Moth flying was on skis, on the ice of a frozen lake, so "making the runway" had a much wider margin for error!

Thus, when power is suddenly not there (no speculating here), the Moth will tend to maintain it's attitude, and just slow down, and stall. This tends to result in a wing drop. The "just let go to recover" technique is not really effective on a Moth, as a deliberate lowering of the nose is more necessary.

A power off arrival works just fine, but will more steep than today's pilots are typically expecting, and the time to flare, as the plane deccelerates, will be rather brief. As long as you're ready, it's fine. Just have your act together!

Back in the day, training was uniform, and very effective, as the students and instructors were military, and well regulated. Now, with that training regiment on type, a thing of the past, it's up to us to stay sharp, and expect different handling when flying very old aircraft.

There's an allure in the old types, Old types deserve some old training - not so easy to get in a new world....

As much as it pains me to inform you...or not so much in this case...unless you are a member of the AAIB, you are not deemed eligible to determine the cause of this.

For the record this guy is by far the best, most experienced, not to mention the safest, pilot I have ever flown with. Need I remind you, you are all speculating using your alleged "intelligence" whereas maybe those who are generally worried will wait for the AAIB report before becoming Einstein.

I understand in the wake of an accident of this kind everyone becomes Sullenberger but seriously some suggestions are utterly ridiculous... We aren't talking about a new PPL with a few hours here.

Just remember all our fellow aviators, this is the chance we take when we step into and aircraft and line up. It isn't up to us to judge. And without becoming morbid, it could be anyone of us tomorrow.

Yes, but this isn't the AAIB website is it? This is Pprune - "Professional Pilots Rumour Network" - and it is to be expected that it will do exactly what it says on the tin.

It's natural enough to want to ask questions when accidents happen and I thank Pilot DAR for the explanation which is what I suspected. In fact on a recent thread he posted a video of a moth accident which lead me to think, the only way out of it was nose down, land ahead.

If you look on Youtube for the 'Tiger Moth hits cow' you can see the fairly long time the pilot had to deal with an engine failure on take-off.

Eyewitness accounts of accidents are notoriously unreliable, and we should be very careful to not take them as fact when discussing this tragedy.