Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Re: Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Postby Flare Path on Fri 10 Mar 2017, 4:40 pm

Removing aerobatics from any display, would be one of the reasons the airshow will move towards a sad demise in this country - I very much doubt the interest from enthusiasts alone (who would appreciate this sort of style more) would be enough to generate the money needed for shows to survive.

I can already see the complaints via social media now...
Flare Path

Re: Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Postby hmeasures on Fri 10 Mar 2017, 6:19 pm

I too agree with many of the posters here that to disallow aerobatic routines in warbirds and classic jets that are perfectly capable of doing so would be a crying shame, and make airshows less interesting and engaging. We have an excellent pool of pilots here in the UK with a great deal of experience displaying high powered warbirds in such a way to fully showcase the aircrafts capabilities - I can't think of seeing a Bearcat display (for example) without fantastic vertical aeros, it's such a pleasure to watch it be put through its paces.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, TFC's throwdown at Fly Navy was one of the absolute standout moments of last years season (you'd know if you were there :wink: ) and there was even a topside or two thrown in for good measure - best of both worlds.

ImageBearcat by Harry Measures, on Flickr
hmeasures

Re: Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Postby TKK 140 on Fri 10 Mar 2017, 6:52 pm

Dan O'Hagan wrote:
iainpeden wrote:
King Cobra wrote:
Dan O'Hagan wrote:
Many of us, myself included, have been calling for aerobatics in vintage aeroplanes to be curtailed for several years

If I had a pound for every time someone said "for once I have to agree with Dan".



That's the one way you'd get that fiver. :icecream:

What makes you think your opinion is anymore important than anyone else? No I don't know either! :dunno:

Clearly it's up to the individual operator, unless you own one, there is nothing more to be said.
TKK 140

Re: Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Postby Ouragan on Sat 11 Mar 2017, 9:31 am

capercaillie wrote:
Ouragan wrote:Of course, even in straight and level flight warbirds have been known to come to grief, and I can think off the top of my head of TF956 in 1989, WG655 in 1990, LF363 in 1991, and VX281/G-RNHF in 2014.

Maybe we should ground them all. Oh, but then...

https://www.richthistle.com/about/artic ... -1993-fire


You're not seriously counting VX281 in that and saying the problem was in the landing after it went bang pulling aeros? :question:


Not quite sure how you read that from what I wrote.

VX281 had an engine and hydraulic problem that, to the best of my knowledge, has not yet been proven to be related to aerobatic manoeuvring, and if not for the skill of the pilot could have resulted in a write off, potentially a fatal one. Indeed, in a talk John Beattie once gave to my aviation group he told us that he was ordered by ATC to abandon TF956 in mid-air and not attempt a landing with one wheel up and one down.

From the AAIB report in to VX281:

Conclusion

The engine failure was a result of the breakup of mechanical components within the front row
of the crankcase. The evidence suggests the failure sequence included the failure of one
of the articulated con-rods, in the vicinity of its wrist pin bearing, and that this was caused
by severe heating. The cause of the overheating is yet unknown. Forensic investigation is
continuing, to establish the exact cause of the engine failure.
User avatar
Ouragan

Re: Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Postby The Baron on Sat 11 Mar 2017, 4:07 pm

Ouragan wrote:
capercaillie wrote:
Ouragan wrote:Of course, even in straight and level flight warbirds have been known to come to grief, and I can think off the top of my head of TF956 in 1989, WG655 in 1990, LF363 in 1991, and VX281/G-RNHF in 2014.

Maybe we should ground them all. Oh, but then...

https://www.richthistle.com/about/artic ... -1993-fire


You're not seriously counting VX281 in that and saying the problem was in the landing after it went bang pulling aeros? :question:


Not quite sure how you read that from what I wrote.


VX281 had an engine and hydraulic problem that, to the best of my knowledge, has not yet been proven to be related to aerobatic manoeuvring, and if not for the skill of the pilot could have resulted in a write off, potentially a fatal one. Indeed, in a talk John Beattie once gave to my aviation group he told us that he was ordered by ATC to abandon TF956 in mid-air and not attempt a landing with one wheel up and one down.

From the AAIB report in to VX281:

Conclusion

The engine failure was a result of the breakup of mechanical components within the front row
of the crankcase. The evidence suggests the failure sequence included the failure of one
of the articulated con-rods, in the vicinity of its wrist pin bearing, and that this was caused
by severe heating. The cause of the overheating is yet unknown. Forensic investigation is
continuing, to establish the exact cause of the engine failure.


The incident occurred mid way through its display which included aerobatics. Not during straight and level flight as you appear to have suggested in your opening line. If you haven't done so already, check out the footage available online. One video, used by the media, was shot by a good friend of mine who I was stood next to at the time.
Loafer for Mr. Da Vinci.
User avatar
The Baron

Re: Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Postby GertrudetheMerciless on Sat 11 Mar 2017, 10:05 pm

Ouragan wrote:Indeed, in a talk John Beattie once gave to my aviation group he told us that he was ordered by ATC to abandon TF956 in mid-air and not attempt a landing with one wheel up and one down.



I'm not sure he would enjoy being "ordered" to bail out by ATC! :smile:

On the other hand, they did probably advise his of the state of his undercarriage, and allow him to make the decision to bail out; IIRC remember correctly landing a Sea Fury with anything other that gear up or gear locked down is a no-no (unless you have no other choice, such as an engine failure).
GertrudetheMerciless

Re: Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Postby trebleone on Sun 12 Mar 2017, 12:38 am

GertrudetheMerciless wrote: .......... IIRC remember correctly landing a Sea Fury with anything other that gear up or gear locked down is a no-no (unless you have no other choice, such as an engine failure).


Chris Götke made a very good job of doing just that at Culdrose (2014 Air Day) :smile:
User avatar
trebleone
UKAR Supporter

Re: Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Postby CJS on Sun 12 Mar 2017, 7:58 am

I would have thought that landing anything without either the gear up or locked down is a no no unless you have to.
"Forewarned is forearmed"
User avatar
CJS

Re: Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Postby FarnboroJohn on Sun 12 Mar 2017, 8:03 am

GertrudetheMerciless wrote:
Ouragan wrote:Indeed, in a talk John Beattie once gave to my aviation group he told us that he was ordered by ATC to abandon TF956 in mid-air and not attempt a landing with one wheel up and one down.



I'm not sure he would enjoy being "ordered" to bail out by ATC! :smile:

On the other hand, they did probably advise his of the state of his undercarriage, and allow him to make the decision to bail out; IIRC remember correctly landing a Sea Fury with anything other that gear up or gear locked down is a no-no (unless you have no other choice, such as an engine failure).


At the time of TF956's demise there was some discussion in Flight International's humour page of the question of landing wide-track undercarriage WWII fighters with one wheel down and one up: a German former FW190 pilot stated that although the aircraft would be damaged, it was his preferred option and that of his colleagues.

John
FarnboroJohn

Re: Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Postby centaurus18 on Sun 12 Mar 2017, 10:24 am

GertrudetheMerciless wrote:
Ouragan wrote:Indeed, in a talk John Beattie once gave to my aviation group he told us that he was ordered by ATC to abandon TF956 in mid-air and not attempt a landing with one wheel up and one down.



I'm not sure he would enjoy being "ordered" to bail out by ATC! :smile:

On the other hand, they did probably advise his of the state of his undercarriage, and allow him to make the decision to bail out; IIRC remember correctly landing a Sea Fury with anything other that gear up or gear locked down is a no-no (unless you have no other choice, such as an engine failure).


Two hours of bouncing down the runway on the good leg did not solve the problem sadly - I think he wanted to try landing it at Prestwick but the right call was made for him to bail out.
Mark
'We’re in the stickiest situation, since Sticky the stick insect got stuck on a sticky bun.'
User avatar
centaurus18

Re: Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Postby Stagger2 on Sun 12 Mar 2017, 1:28 pm

With 4 (nearly 5?) pages of off-topic discussion having mere cross-references to 'Shoreham', I'm presuming this thread is all but played-out? (for now)
How about a new Topic, 'Air-shows 2017 & going forward'....or 'Why Planes Crash - a laypersons guide' :whistle:
Stagger2

Re: Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Postby Ouragan on Mon 13 Mar 2017, 1:06 pm

GertrudetheMerciless wrote:
Ouragan wrote:Indeed, in a talk John Beattie once gave to my aviation group he told us that he was ordered by ATC to abandon TF956 in mid-air and not attempt a landing with one wheel up and one down.



I'm not sure he would enjoy being "ordered" to bail out by ATC! :smile:

On the other hand, they did probably advise his of the state of his undercarriage, and allow him to make the decision to bail out; IIRC remember correctly landing a Sea Fury with anything other that gear up or gear locked down is a no-no (unless you have no other choice, such as an engine failure).


Nope, the word he used was ordered.
User avatar
Ouragan

Re: Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Postby Ouragan on Mon 13 Mar 2017, 1:07 pm

The Baron wrote:
Ouragan wrote:
capercaillie wrote:
Ouragan wrote:Of course, even in straight and level flight warbirds have been known to come to grief, and I can think off the top of my head of TF956 in 1989, WG655 in 1990, LF363 in 1991, and VX281/G-RNHF in 2014.

Maybe we should ground them all. Oh, but then...

https://www.richthistle.com/about/artic ... -1993-fire


You're not seriously counting VX281 in that and saying the problem was in the landing after it went bang pulling aeros? :question:


Not quite sure how you read that from what I wrote.


VX281 had an engine and hydraulic problem that, to the best of my knowledge, has not yet been proven to be related to aerobatic manoeuvring, and if not for the skill of the pilot could have resulted in a write off, potentially a fatal one. Indeed, in a talk John Beattie once gave to my aviation group he told us that he was ordered by ATC to abandon TF956 in mid-air and not attempt a landing with one wheel up and one down.

From the AAIB report in to VX281:

Conclusion

The engine failure was a result of the breakup of mechanical components within the front row
of the crankcase. The evidence suggests the failure sequence included the failure of one
of the articulated con-rods, in the vicinity of its wrist pin bearing, and that this was caused
by severe heating. The cause of the overheating is yet unknown. Forensic investigation is
continuing, to establish the exact cause of the engine failure.


The incident occurred mid way through its display which included aerobatics. Not during straight and level flight as you appear to have suggested in your opening line. If you haven't done so already, check out the footage available online. One video, used by the media, was shot by a good friend of mine who I was stood next to at the time.


Okay, fair enough, but there is no evidence to suggest that the aerobatics were the cause, and this is what I am arguing.
User avatar
Ouragan

Re: Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Postby The Baron on Mon 13 Mar 2017, 1:19 pm

Of that you're quite right. In truth the Sea Fury was in a hangar being worked on the morning of Culdrose air day and it was touch and go whether it would fly at all.
Loafer for Mr. Da Vinci.
User avatar
The Baron

Re: Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Postby Elliott Marsh on Mon 13 Mar 2017, 1:23 pm

I'm no pilot, but would it be right to say that the speed and energy generated flying aerobatic figures would put a pilot in better stead to make a false landing in the event of an engine failure than if the aircraft was wallowing around low and (comparatively) slow? Case in point being JR in the Buchon at Headcorn and potentially the Fury at Culdrose (I will admit to not having the means to check the footage at this point).

If you're flying high energy aerobatics and lose the engine at low altitude you can convert your speed to height. If you lose it in the climb or at the apex of a loop, for example, and can safely carry out an escape manoeuvre, you have the height to convert to speed to at least attempt an emergency landing. Lose your engine low and slow, your options are very limited and depending on the speed and height, you're likely going only one way.

Once again - I'm not a pilot, so if any professionals can offer insight into that assessment, by all means do!
Elliott Marsh

Re: Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Postby capercaillie on Mon 13 Mar 2017, 1:36 pm

There is equally no evidence to suggest it would have happened in straight and level flight and therefore shouldn't be on your list.

The fact that the aircraft was performing aeros when it did happen, strongly I would suggest, did cause something to go awry.

The point remains that many warbirds in recent times have been lost when performing high energy aeros, P-38 Lightning, P-63 Kingcobra, Rolls Royce Spitfire, RNHF Firefly etc, the last really bewildering as did we really need to see aeros in a Firefly?

I have fond memories of all of them in better times, and I still cringe at times when I see beautiful priceless aircraft pulling out of loops with a few feet to spare and then flung back vertically into the next high-G manoeuvre. Maybe it is selfish from a photography point of view, but the Meteor display at Cosby in 2015 post Shoreham offered the best crowdside passes almost continuously from the moment it arrived. Would I prefer that display to watching a Gnat or a Hunter looping and spending half the time over 3000 feet, I certainly would. :smile:
"The surrogate voice of st24"
User avatar
capercaillie

Re: Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Postby LN Strike Eagle on Mon 13 Mar 2017, 1:53 pm

capercaillie wrote:The point remains that many warbirds in recent times have been lost when performing high energy aeros, P-38 Lightning, P-63 Kingcobra, Rolls Royce Spitfire, RNHF Firefly etc, the last really bewildering as did we really need to see aeros in a Firefly?

I have fond memories of all of them in better times, and I still cringe at times when I see beautiful priceless aircraft pulling out of loops with a few feet to spare and then flung back vertically into the next high-G manoeuvre. Maybe it is selfish from a photography point of view, but the Meteor display at Cosby in 2015 post Shoreham offered the best crowdside passes almost continuously from the moment it arrived. Would I prefer that display to watching a Gnat or a Hunter looping and spending half the time over 3000 feet, I certainly would. :smile:

Agreed.
"You really are an oafish philistine at times!"
User avatar
LN Strike Eagle
UKAR Staff

Re: Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Postby Elliott Marsh on Mon 13 Mar 2017, 2:00 pm

As a counter point, it's been nearly 10 years since the Hurricane was lost at Shoreham. Prior to that, the P-63 went in (off a loop) almost 16 years ago, the last time, I believe, a piston warbird crashed following a vertical aerobatic manoeuvre. Lessons have been learned from all of them and recommendations made by the AAIB (and in many cases, accepted by the CAA). Equally warbirds are flown by aviators who have more experience than ever on type, and they are flown more sympathetically, higher and less aggressively than in the past. Risk mitigation, in effect.
Elliott Marsh

Re: Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Postby st24 on Mon 13 Mar 2017, 2:03 pm

capercaillie wrote: RNHF Firefly etc, the last really bewildering as did we really need to see aeros in a Firefly?

I always recall the Firefly being aerobatted in the early days ('70s)- barrel rolls and derrys etc, though certainly not to the same extent as the Sea Fury as it (TF956) was thrown around with much gay abandon. It then had some service issues and I think received a new Griffon from a Shackleton and during the '90s was flown much more sedately. Then almost from nowhere in the '00s we started getting derrys and Canadian breaks again which I though quite odd... :confused:
You caaan't trust the system... Maaan!
User avatar
st24

Re: Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Postby Elliott Marsh on Mon 13 Mar 2017, 2:31 pm

Let's not forget the aircraft that have ended up in fields in very recent years. The German Spitfire T.IX, MK912 at Biggin Hill, the Albatros, a French Skyraider. Engine difficulties can happen at any time, and high performance V12s and radials can cope perfectly well with carrying out aerobatics at the power setting used in a display environment. It isn't like they're blasting around on combat power...
Elliott Marsh

Re: Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Postby Dan O'Hagan on Mon 13 Mar 2017, 4:17 pm

capercaillie wrote:There is equally no evidence to suggest it would have happened in straight and level flight and therefore shouldn't be on your list.

The fact that the aircraft was performing aeros when it did happen, strongly I would suggest, did cause something to go awry.

The point remains that many warbirds in recent times have been lost when performing high energy aeros, P-38 Lightning, P-63 Kingcobra, Rolls Royce Spitfire, RNHF Firefly etc, the last really bewildering as did we really need to see aeros in a Firefly?

I have fond memories of all of them in better times, and I still cringe at times when I see beautiful priceless aircraft pulling out of loops with a few feet to spare and then flung back vertically into the next high-G manoeuvre. Maybe it is selfish from a photography point of view, but the Meteor display at Cosby in 2015 post Shoreham offered the best crowdside passes almost continuously from the moment it arrived. Would I prefer that display to watching a Gnat or a Hunter looping and spending half the time over 3000 feet, I certainly would. :smile:


Amen to this.

Display the aeroplane, not the size of the pilot's balls.
Dan O'Hagan

Re: Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Postby pbeardmore on Mon 13 Mar 2017, 5:02 pm

The tank bank at Duxford was not popular for getting great views of aerobatics, it was all about the passes and it was packed with us lot and joe public.

IMHO, looking up into the sun to watch a warbird at the top of a loop is/would be no great loss.
“The best computer is a man, and it’s the only one that can be mass-produced by unskilled labour.”
User avatar
pbeardmore

Re: Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Postby Elliott Marsh on Mon 13 Mar 2017, 5:07 pm

What confuses me is that there have been calls for PT to attend Duxford airshows in the past and his displays have typically been praised. PT flies vertical aerobatics and rolls in all of his aircraft, occasionally from a low base height. Similarly JR has been singled out (rightly) as being one of the best display pilots in the country - but he too flies a sweeping aerobatic display in warbird fighters, opening with a Cuban-8 and B-axis Cuban-8 before entering a succession of barrel rolls and topside passes. Are they also showing off the size of their balls, or are they exempt from that criticism? Were the Hannas flying low-level aerobatics just to feed their egos?!

Once again...

Appreciate we all have different viewpoints on the matter, but to suggest that pilots only carry out vertical aerobatics to satisfy their egos does a massive disservice to the many vastly experience vintage aircraft pilots who fly or have flown safe displays for decades.
Elliott Marsh

Re: Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Postby ArabJazzie on Mon 13 Mar 2017, 6:24 pm

GertrudetheMerciless wrote:
Ouragan wrote:Indeed, in a talk John Beattie once gave to my aviation group he told us that he was ordered by ATC to abandon TF956 in mid-air and not attempt a landing with one wheel up and one down.



I'm not sure he would enjoy being "ordered" to bail out by ATC! :smile:

On the other hand, they did probably advise his of the state of his undercarriage, and allow him to make the decision to bail out; IIRC remember correctly landing a Sea Fury with anything other that gear up or gear locked down is a no-no (unless you have no other choice, such as an engine failure).


When you try and make a case for the rights or wrongs of landing one leg hung, you must consider the culture of the time was more about keeping the airport operational at all costs, rather than have an airshow act stop what in this case was a revenue making operational airport.

If i remember correctly, this was of the time around the Manchester disaster where one of the factors that made that incident worse was the "need" that any aircraft in trouble should if at all possible, get off the runway to allow the continued operation of the airport. This was also applied to the decision that ordered Mr Beattie to abandon his aircraft at sea, thus allowing the airport to operate.

Thankfully, that kind of thing has been changed and these days we would more than likely have another damaged Sea Fury awaiting a return.
Arabest,
Geoff.
52 in a year! We must be certifiable!
ArabJazzie

Re: Hunter accident at Shoreham (discussion)

Postby TKK 140 on Mon 13 Mar 2017, 6:33 pm

pbeardmore wrote:The tank bank at Duxford was not popular for getting great views of aerobatics, it was all about the passes and it was packed with us lot and joe public.

IMHO, looking up into the sun to watch a warbird at the top of a loop is/would be no great loss.



The tank bank saw several straight and level take offs right over the crowd very dangerous. . It's all about risk and picking out a routine to suit the argument belies the real risk.
TKK 140

PreviousNext

Return to Aviation Waffle

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 16 guests