Spitfire down in France

[fly_tornado]

[kasper]

You left off the caption that adds a bit to this pic not being a simple takeoff flip"Close call: Cpt Stephens' picture of a crashed spitfire at Skellingtons air strip. Like Cpt Stephens did when battling the Messerschmitt, the pilot of this would have ejected"

Added to the fact from the caption that his was an airframe crashing from flight with without pilot you might note that there appears to be significant airframe damage to the wing just where the guy is climbing up to look ...not comparable to the French accident in my opinion

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Surprised if the spar was intact and not corroded if it did snap ... google "spitfire spar tubes" and take a look at what goes into each main spar flange. I've seen a new spar being built in the uk and that sucker ain't breaking with just the force from the weight of the plane in a low speed tip over.

Looking at the video frame by frame you can see this is a bit more than a slow speed tip over. The engine producing lots of power and the prop hitting the ground forces the nose violently to the left as the nose hits the ground. This results in a lot of rotational force to the wing tip as the aircraft goes over. Lots of leverage there putting huge strain on the wing root area I would have thought.

 

 

[planedriver]

That's real sad outcome for such an iconic aircraft.

 

 

[Marty_d]

That's real sad outcome for such an iconic aircraft.

I'm sure it'll get repaired. A classic like that is just far too valuable to scrap after an accident like that.

 

 

[Deskpilot]

A public airshow and no ambulance!!! Can't believe it.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

not every country in the world is as over the top anal about OH&S like Australia is

 

 

[facthunter]

Left tyre deflated a bit? Nev

 

 

[cooperplace]

if I recall correctly my now deceased relative who flew these extensively in WW2 said that there were many accidents on takeoff in spits, that they could be quite a handful

 

 

[Keenaviator]

Left tyre deflated a bit? Nev

Maybe, but no excuse for this mishandling in my opinion.

 

 

[facthunter]

Oh really. Have you any concept of how much weight transfer there is on a narrow track undercarriage with the torque of that prop. It's also all over once the prop starts digging the dirt. The ground is pretty soft and it turns it and the plane trips over the prop. Nev.

 

 

[Keenaviator]

I think you are stating the obvious mate. It still appears to me that he applied excessive power to get the thing rolling - gentle progressive application is what is required, not a fist full.

 

The cause was this bloke thinking before he even got on board that he was going to REALLY impress the punters with his amazing skill. Sort of backfired just a bit....

 

 

[facthunter]

I hope I never get as judgemental as you are .. Nev

 

 

[dan3111]

I think one of those takeoff that went wrong because ?

 

It was a list of things added up to the end CRASH

 

Soft ground ,struts may have been low on pressure ,

 

lack of pilot ground handing as aircraft to dear to build hours on it

 

Because of the (airshow crowd) pilot maybe holding brakes on a little more to show off short take off roll ,

 

Basically at the end of the day poor design when prop diameter not suited for the aircraft under cart height .

 

IF you set up a tail dragger in level flight the so that prop touches the ground you are very poor designer.

 

cheers dan

 

 

[Teckair]

I think one of those takeoff that went wrong because ?It was a list of things added up to the end CRASH

Soft ground ,struts may have been low on pressure ,

 

lack of pilot ground handing as aircraft to dear to build hours on it

 

Because of the (airshow crowd) pilot maybe holding brakes on a little more to show off short take off roll ,

 

Basically at the end of the day poor design when prop diameter not suited for the aircraft under cart height .

 

IF you set up a tail dragger in level flight the so that prop touches the ground you are very poor designer.

 

cheers dan

Mmmmm don't think the Spitfire is a poor design anybody who thinks this is not pilot error doesn't understand what happened IMHO. The second video should eliminate any doubt.

 

 

[facthunter]

People have to fit different props sometimes as the original might not be available. All that stuff is about 78 years old. There wasn't enough ground clearance for the prop. Was it a Griffon engine?. Generally Spitfires take off tail low. Reduces what you can see..They have a narrow track undercarriage. That's why they waddle on some uneven grass fields. Nev

 

 

[Teckair]

There wasn't enough ground clearance for the prop..

Going by the video I don't think that is correct, but even if that was true all the more reason to handle it with care with power and tail height. As for soft ground and flat tyres hopefully the guy did a preflight and checked the condition of the runway. I am bewildered as to why anybody would want make up excuses for the miss handling of that aircraft.

 

 

[facthunter]

You keep alluding to that. I might too if I hadn't over my lifetime been involved in accident /incident investigation where authorities took your line and most of the time, after proper and full investigation emerging facts exposed issues showing the pilot was not to blame in most cases. You will still see many references to pilot error .. A convenient misused phrase which has little standing in proper investigative circles, and statistics based on the assumption of it's validity. Proper analysis of accidents aims to find the real reason it occurred, with a view to preventing more of the same , not simply asserting from the outset the pilot was to blame and that's it .Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

That freeze frame at the instant the prop touched the ground shows that the prop is nowhere near too large. The pilot would have been seeing the runway just in front of him, instead of just having peripheral vision.

 

 

[ozbear]

Obviously nose wheel failure ie failed to fit one lol

 

 

[Teckair]

You keep alluding to that. I might too if I hadn't over my lifetime been involved in accident /incident investigation where authorities took your line and most of the time, after proper and full investigation emerging facts exposed issues showing the pilot was not to blame in most cases. You will still see many references to pilot error .. A convenient misused phrase which has little standing in proper investigative circles, and statistics based on the assumption of it's validity. Proper analysis of accidents aims to find the real reason it occurred, with a view to preventing more of the same , not simply asserting from the outset the pilot was to blame and that's it .Nev

It is admirable people don't want to automatically blame the pilot but there are two videos with sound and you can hear the power being used before the aircraft has built up any real speed it could only ever end up that way.

 

 

[facthunter]

Funny how you think power will tip it on it's nose. (It would if the brakes were on.) The centre of gravity is pretty much in line with the thrust line so the pitch effect is close to neutral. . The U/C has little weight % wise. It's well forward of the CofG. You normally need forward stick to lift the tail or if you are a real smart arse you touch the brakes (at your own peril). There are gyroscopic and torque forces and a fair amount of rudder offset or trim needed with a non contra prop because of the airflow spiralling along the fuselage.. This will cause a turn if not catered for. There was a wind from the left (Port) side but not very strong. Nev

 

 

[Teckair]

Then there is the P factor, someone has said the c of g is only just behind the uc how much hp? maybe 2000? Thrust line is well above the wheel friction on the ground.

 

 

[Teckair]

At the point it tipped l would have thought full back stick and 25% power would have been about right not tail up and heaps of power.

 

 

[facthunter]

Your main problem with lifting the tail up fairly quickly up is losing directional control. What is this wheel friction you are talking about? It is 3/8ths of nothing, (unless the ground was soft, a tyre part deflated or the brakes applied all of which I have made mention.). If you want good vision you get the tail up.. Nev