By: Mark V
- 20th August 2003 at 21:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No other flying Mossies unfortunately. Bae Mosquito was totally destroyed (sadly in the true meaning this time - virtually nothing re-useable left). Weeks RS712 in Wisconsin has not flown in some years and there are rumours of delamination problems so it may not fly again without major work.
New
Posts: 257
By: AlexisLambert
- 20th August 2003 at 22:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There are supposedly brand new wings being manufactured in New Zealand for Weeks's Mossie.
New
Posts: 25
By: TomB
- 20th August 2003 at 23:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aeros may add interest, but is that worth the risk to the a/c & crew. Would Jo Public, who make the majority airshow audience, notice if a Firefly wasnt doing aeros, but a Pitts was?
I would much rather see a rare a/c flying gracefully & conservatively than not at all, minimising the risks of being airborne.
This year seems to have been particulrly bad though, and as its the silly season, it isnt surprising the media are having a fit.
By: Ant.H
- 20th August 2003 at 23:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think we should just wait until some form of official statement is made and then we will know what it is that we're commenting on.No offence to anyone,but we don't have the facts to work with at the moment,so this whole thread is based on conjecture. Give it time and I'm sure the picture will become clearer.
"People seem to forget that the much missed BAe Mosquito never did an aerobatic display. It had very strict limits on both speed and airframe limits (250kts max, +2 g & no intentional negative) so that kind of made an aerobatic display a no-go yet it still crashed?"
The Mossie was lost when an engine lost power during a wing-over,initiating a spin from which there was insufficient hieght to recover.IMHO, I would count a wing-over as an aerobatic manouvre.
... you can read all about the accidents that occur in the U.K. A large proportion of them are caused by inexperienced student pilots on bland training aircraft. Only a tiny number relate to historic aircraft accidents.
Maybe we should ban PPL training to cut down on the number of accidents? I say that in jest. The problem is the accidents involving historic aircraft are just more visible.
GASCO - the General Aviation Safty Council look at these accidents all the time. They are constantly looking for ways to improve safety. If anything needs to be done they will be the ones making the decisions.
By: Jasonp51d
- 21st August 2003 at 00:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Way forward??
Obviously not much is known yet about the IWM's official position - I was hoping someone who was in the know might have the inside track on whether there was a ban in the offing.
I have e-mailed the IWM today asking for clarification of their position as to act on speculation would be premature.
However it seems to me if a ban is proposed perhaps those of us who are against it could launch some sought of counter campaign (perhaps in conjuction with some of the operators at Duxford).
What worries me the most is the hysterical coverage in the media - I for one will be writing to the Cambridge Evening News tommorrow to severley criticise their coverage.
Why don't they cover they put the number of car accidents, rapes, burglaries etc on the front page of their newspapers.
By: Bradburger
- 21st August 2003 at 02:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmmm
Ant, although the wingover is listed and described in Neil Williams book Aerobatics, most pilots refer to it as a positioning manouver. If you look at a WWII aircraft during a display, aerobatic or non aerobatic, the wingover is usually part and parcel of their sequence.
However, it can be as dangerous (as illustrated with the Mosquito) as any of the manouvers people normally associate as aerobatic ones. Any twin with a high single engine saftey speed has to be careful during this manouver because if the airspeed is allowed to get below the single engine saftey speed and one fails, it's usually guaranteed to come a cropper.
Also in an aircraft such as a Mustang, the wingover is where you can find yourself in trouble as well. With the speed decreasing and the pilot pulling it can lead him straight into the buffet which, given the Mustangs dislike of being flown in this condition, isn't such a good idea. Indeed I believe the former Spencer Flack P51 Sunny VII was a victim to this after it went stateside.
So, I still can't see the logic behind those who say ban aerobatics in vintage planes. If all the accidents that happened at Duxford & everywhere else involving historic aircraft had been caused whilst they were doing aerobatics, then maybe I might agree.
However, as it stands I can't really see the need.
As I pointed out in my previous post and by JasonP51D, we still aren't sure what changes will be taking place at Duxford airshows so maybe we are all jumping the gun.
By: mike currill
- 21st August 2003 at 06:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Originally posted by aj_march Has anyone pointed out that neither of the L39s or the Blenheim were actually doing aerobatics, or going back Black 6? I can only think of the Firefly crash that involved them!
By: patb
- 21st August 2003 at 12:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I am not sure that I understand the logic behind listing aircraft that have crashed within non-aerobatic situations and using that to attemptt to justify the continuation of warbird aerobatics.
Risk management is always going to be a compromise. Is there anyone on the forum that thinks that warbird aerobatics is as safe as a straight, level flypast?
In the long term, having no warbird aerobatic displays will reduce the number of accidents and even save lives. (to test this theory, pretend that warbird aerobatics were banned at airshows 20 years ago)
Although I would be personally dissapointed, how many airshow visitors would decide not to come because of this single issue? very,very few.
Yes, if you take it to an extreme, you ban the flying of warbirds full stop, but this is where the compromise comes in. If we can make warbird airshow flying safer but still have a thriving airshow circuit in the UK, then why not?
By: Bruce
- 21st August 2003 at 14:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A couple of Mosquito points from the above:
RR299 had completed its display and was on the climbout when the engine quit. It was not performing a wingover. As has been mentioned it had insufficient height once it had recovered from the spin - it actually span, was recovered, then span again, recovered again, both engines picked up but had no flying speed so crashed.
Another 150 ft and it would still be here.
It was completely destroyed, and all of the remains were scrapped.
RS712 is not having wings remade in New Zealand or anywhere else. I understand there is some delamination, much of this is probably the fabric covering coming loose on the airframe. It has never been recovered, so this is highly likely! Kermit keeps a maximum of eight aircraft licensed at any one time (TomW correct me if I am wrong), and the Mossie is not high on his list of priorities!
Anyway, my two pennorth - A well flown flat display is often more impressive than aerobatics. A good pilot can keep an aeroplane in view of the crowd at all times without having to enter into aerobatic manouevres. One of the finest displays I ever saw was Charlie Brown flying a flat display in BM597 at Salisbury Hall - very, very good.
By: Moggy C
- 21st August 2003 at 15:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Originally posted by Bruce A well flown flat display is often more impressive than aerobatics. A good pilot can keep an aeroplane in view of the crowd at all times without having to enter into aerobatic manouevres.
Bruce
I think I'd modify that to say that a well flown flat display is more impressive than a badly flown aerobatic one, but can never match up to a well flown aerobatic routine. If an aircraft is capable of aeros, then that is how it should be flown.
We are, however, all entitled to our own opinions.
By: Bruce
- 21st August 2003 at 15:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, thats fair - trouble is as soon as these things head skywards, my right eye closes, as it is a bit sensitive, so I miss half of whats going on anyway!! So I probably have a bias!!
By: Bradburger
- 21st August 2003 at 16:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bruce
According to the AAIB report, it was doing a wingover when the left, engine lost power.
Here's what the report says:
" The Display was nearing it's conclusion with a flypast along the display axis from east to west followed by a steep climb into a 'wingover' to the right during which control of the aircraft was lost".
I don't think the AAIB would put that in the report if it wasn't what happened.
As for listing the accident's that didn't involve warbirds that were not doing aerobatics, well it seems to prove a point that more of them have perished outside of the display environment than in it.
Of the Warbirds that have crashed at airshows I count 4 whilst performing an aerobatic display here in the UK. Whilst the loss of any of these is heartbreaking, not to mention the loss of life, the number that has been lost or damaged while not doing aero's or displaying seems to be greater.
I agree that the average member of public who attends a display probably does not know the difference between a loop and a barrel roll and has no idea of the skills involved in flying, let alone displaying a high performance piston Warbird.
Yet there are plenty of us that do and to see someone like Ray Hanna or Stephen Grey flying a nice flowing safe aerobatic display with a gusting off crowd wind in one of their aircraft is a real pleasure.
Cheers
Paul
New
Posts: 123
By: yak139
- 21st August 2003 at 16:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When at the Sun 'n' Fun in Florida they displayed warbirds without any aerobatics, this was left to Pitts, Sukhoi's etc.
At one time we had a Spitfire, Yak 9, Mustang, Corsair and Hellcat charging round the circuit. On passing down the runway machine gun fire was heard over the tannoy and the ground crew ignited large barrels of fuel, loud bang, lots of flame and smoke, most spectacular. As the aircraft were travelling at some speed the climb out was something also, I wish......
Low level aerobatics is okay but when it goes wrong, as we have seen it can be fatal.
By: patb
- 21st August 2003 at 16:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Surely, if you look at the hours that a warbird spends doing aerobatics compared to straight and level flight, it is a certainty that problems will occur (some leading to accidents) whilst simply flying from A to B. But, pro-rata, problems are more likely during aerobatics. You will always be able to find some other factor that occurs more often simply because it happens within an environment that is more common, but we don't then use that to justify doing the more dangerous thing.
( I am more likely to be killed in a car crash but I don't use that fact to justify knife juggling) I balance the risk versus the advantages. Aerobatics for warbirds adds to the risk and gives us little back.
Even though we are dealing with an emotional subject (both with the lives of the pilots and the cherished aircraft), the bottom line has to be statistics and risk management.
By: Bruce
- 21st August 2003 at 16:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I stand corrected!
I watched the video again and again after the accident and it was our opinion at the time that he had completed his display and was climbing away. I've not read the report for a while - too many memories! I knew the flight engineer very well, and had been involved with the mosquito (from a distance) for some time.
By: Bradburger
- 21st August 2003 at 16:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
patb,
If all the accidents that had involved Warbirds happened whilst they were doing aero's, then I think you would have a justified argument.
As for flying in a straight line, well look what happened to poor old Alan Martin in LF363!
As to those who say "Leave the aerobatics to the Pitts etc" well I can't understand that either. These type of aircraft are designed to and do real aerobatics. I mean, when was the last time you saw a Spitfire do a Lomcovak and pull 8G?
Obviously the risks increase the lower to the ground you go, whether the display is aerobatic or non, but I think I'd feel safer in the back of a Mustang doing a low level aerobatic display than in the back of a car on the M25!
Bruce,
No problem!
It was a real tragedy when she and the crew were lost.
The strange thing for me was that I hadn't seen RR299 in the flesh for a number of years until one day in 1996 as I was walking around our town; I heard the sound of a familiar aero engine. As I looked up I was privileged with the sight of her flying at about 1500 ft en route to Shoreham.
By: Yak 11 Fan
- 21st August 2003 at 17:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have watched the Frightening Blighters on a number of occasions and undoubtably they are spectacular, however I am not keen on their display due to the fact that they are so close together. I fall into the camp of enjoying the more sedate warbird displays from a personal preference however I fail to see how an out right ban on Warbird Aerobatics will significantly change things.
Posts: 2,982
By: Mark V - 20th August 2003 at 21:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No other flying Mossies unfortunately. Bae Mosquito was totally destroyed (sadly in the true meaning this time - virtually nothing re-useable left). Weeks RS712 in Wisconsin has not flown in some years and there are rumours of delamination problems so it may not fly again without major work.
Posts: 257
By: AlexisLambert - 20th August 2003 at 22:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There are supposedly brand new wings being manufactured in New Zealand for Weeks's Mossie.
Posts: 25
By: TomB - 20th August 2003 at 23:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aeros may add interest, but is that worth the risk to the a/c & crew. Would Jo Public, who make the majority airshow audience, notice if a Firefly wasnt doing aeros, but a Pitts was?
I would much rather see a rare a/c flying gracefully & conservatively than not at all, minimising the risks of being airborne.
This year seems to have been particulrly bad though, and as its the silly season, it isnt surprising the media are having a fit.
Posts: 3,000
By: Ant.H - 20th August 2003 at 23:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think we should just wait until some form of official statement is made and then we will know what it is that we're commenting on.No offence to anyone,but we don't have the facts to work with at the moment,so this whole thread is based on conjecture. Give it time and I'm sure the picture will become clearer.
"People seem to forget that the much missed BAe Mosquito never did an aerobatic display. It had very strict limits on both speed and airframe limits (250kts max, +2 g & no intentional negative) so that kind of made an aerobatic display a no-go yet it still crashed?"
The Mossie was lost when an engine lost power during a wing-over,initiating a spin from which there was insufficient hieght to recover.IMHO, I would count a wing-over as an aerobatic manouvre.
Posts: 2,529
By: Chipmunk Carol - 20th August 2003 at 23:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If you go to ...
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/grou...hcst?n=5258&l=3
... you can read all about the accidents that occur in the U.K. A large proportion of them are caused by inexperienced student pilots on bland training aircraft. Only a tiny number relate to historic aircraft accidents.
Maybe we should ban PPL training to cut down on the number of accidents? I say that in jest. The problem is the accidents involving historic aircraft are just more visible.
GASCO - the General Aviation Safty Council look at these accidents all the time. They are constantly looking for ways to improve safety. If anything needs to be done they will be the ones making the decisions.
Has anyone mentioned display authorisations yet?
Posts: 252
By: Jasonp51d - 21st August 2003 at 00:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Way forward??
Obviously not much is known yet about the IWM's official position - I was hoping someone who was in the know might have the inside track on whether there was a ban in the offing.
I have e-mailed the IWM today asking for clarification of their position as to act on speculation would be premature.
However it seems to me if a ban is proposed perhaps those of us who are against it could launch some sought of counter campaign (perhaps in conjuction with some of the operators at Duxford).
What worries me the most is the hysterical coverage in the media - I for one will be writing to the Cambridge Evening News tommorrow to severley criticise their coverage.
Why don't they cover they put the number of car accidents, rapes, burglaries etc on the front page of their newspapers.
Just my late night ramblings - what do think??
VBR
Jason:confused:
Posts: 1,537
By: Bradburger - 21st August 2003 at 02:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmmm
Ant, although the wingover is listed and described in Neil Williams book Aerobatics, most pilots refer to it as a positioning manouver. If you look at a WWII aircraft during a display, aerobatic or non aerobatic, the wingover is usually part and parcel of their sequence.
However, it can be as dangerous (as illustrated with the Mosquito) as any of the manouvers people normally associate as aerobatic ones. Any twin with a high single engine saftey speed has to be careful during this manouver because if the airspeed is allowed to get below the single engine saftey speed and one fails, it's usually guaranteed to come a cropper.
Also in an aircraft such as a Mustang, the wingover is where you can find yourself in trouble as well. With the speed decreasing and the pilot pulling it can lead him straight into the buffet which, given the Mustangs dislike of being flown in this condition, isn't such a good idea. Indeed I believe the former Spencer Flack P51 Sunny VII was a victim to this after it went stateside.
So, I still can't see the logic behind those who say ban aerobatics in vintage planes. If all the accidents that happened at Duxford & everywhere else involving historic aircraft had been caused whilst they were doing aerobatics, then maybe I might agree.
However, as it stands I can't really see the need.
As I pointed out in my previous post and by JasonP51D, we still aren't sure what changes will be taking place at Duxford airshows so maybe we are all jumping the gun.
Lets hope so.
Just my 2£ worth!
Cheers
Paul
Posts: 8,505
By: mike currill - 21st August 2003 at 06:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Obviously don't remember the P38 crash then?
Posts: 169
By: patb - 21st August 2003 at 12:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I am not sure that I understand the logic behind listing aircraft that have crashed within non-aerobatic situations and using that to attemptt to justify the continuation of warbird aerobatics.
Risk management is always going to be a compromise. Is there anyone on the forum that thinks that warbird aerobatics is as safe as a straight, level flypast?
In the long term, having no warbird aerobatic displays will reduce the number of accidents and even save lives. (to test this theory, pretend that warbird aerobatics were banned at airshows 20 years ago)
Although I would be personally dissapointed, how many airshow visitors would decide not to come because of this single issue? very,very few.
Yes, if you take it to an extreme, you ban the flying of warbirds full stop, but this is where the compromise comes in. If we can make warbird airshow flying safer but still have a thriving airshow circuit in the UK, then why not?
again, just my 2 pence
Posts: 8,464
By: Bruce - 21st August 2003 at 14:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A couple of Mosquito points from the above:
RR299 had completed its display and was on the climbout when the engine quit. It was not performing a wingover. As has been mentioned it had insufficient height once it had recovered from the spin - it actually span, was recovered, then span again, recovered again, both engines picked up but had no flying speed so crashed.
Another 150 ft and it would still be here.
It was completely destroyed, and all of the remains were scrapped.
RS712 is not having wings remade in New Zealand or anywhere else. I understand there is some delamination, much of this is probably the fabric covering coming loose on the airframe. It has never been recovered, so this is highly likely! Kermit keeps a maximum of eight aircraft licensed at any one time (TomW correct me if I am wrong), and the Mossie is not high on his list of priorities!
Anyway, my two pennorth - A well flown flat display is often more impressive than aerobatics. A good pilot can keep an aeroplane in view of the crowd at all times without having to enter into aerobatic manouevres. One of the finest displays I ever saw was Charlie Brown flying a flat display in BM597 at Salisbury Hall - very, very good.
Bruce
Posts: 16,832
By: Moggy C - 21st August 2003 at 15:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think I'd modify that to say that a well flown flat display is more impressive than a badly flown aerobatic one, but can never match up to a well flown aerobatic routine. If an aircraft is capable of aeros, then that is how it should be flown.
We are, however, all entitled to our own opinions.
Moggy :)
Posts: 8,464
By: Bruce - 21st August 2003 at 15:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, thats fair - trouble is as soon as these things head skywards, my right eye closes, as it is a bit sensitive, so I miss half of whats going on anyway!! So I probably have a bias!!
Cheers
Bruce
Posts: 2,982
By: Mark V - 21st August 2003 at 15:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi Bruce,
I think Ant was reffering to the official AAIB accident report on the Mosquito regarding the 'wingover'.
Posts: 1,537
By: Bradburger - 21st August 2003 at 16:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bruce
According to the AAIB report, it was doing a wingover when the left, engine lost power.
Here's what the report says:
" The Display was nearing it's conclusion with a flypast along the display axis from east to west followed by a steep climb into a 'wingover' to the right during which control of the aircraft was lost".
I don't think the AAIB would put that in the report if it wasn't what happened.
As for listing the accident's that didn't involve warbirds that were not doing aerobatics, well it seems to prove a point that more of them have perished outside of the display environment than in it.
Of the Warbirds that have crashed at airshows I count 4 whilst performing an aerobatic display here in the UK. Whilst the loss of any of these is heartbreaking, not to mention the loss of life, the number that has been lost or damaged while not doing aero's or displaying seems to be greater.
I agree that the average member of public who attends a display probably does not know the difference between a loop and a barrel roll and has no idea of the skills involved in flying, let alone displaying a high performance piston Warbird.
Yet there are plenty of us that do and to see someone like Ray Hanna or Stephen Grey flying a nice flowing safe aerobatic display with a gusting off crowd wind in one of their aircraft is a real pleasure.
Cheers
Paul
Posts: 123
By: yak139 - 21st August 2003 at 16:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When at the Sun 'n' Fun in Florida they displayed warbirds without any aerobatics, this was left to Pitts, Sukhoi's etc.
At one time we had a Spitfire, Yak 9, Mustang, Corsair and Hellcat charging round the circuit. On passing down the runway machine gun fire was heard over the tannoy and the ground crew ignited large barrels of fuel, loud bang, lots of flame and smoke, most spectacular. As the aircraft were travelling at some speed the climb out was something also, I wish......
Low level aerobatics is okay but when it goes wrong, as we have seen it can be fatal.
Posts: 169
By: patb - 21st August 2003 at 16:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Surely, if you look at the hours that a warbird spends doing aerobatics compared to straight and level flight, it is a certainty that problems will occur (some leading to accidents) whilst simply flying from A to B. But, pro-rata, problems are more likely during aerobatics. You will always be able to find some other factor that occurs more often simply because it happens within an environment that is more common, but we don't then use that to justify doing the more dangerous thing.
( I am more likely to be killed in a car crash but I don't use that fact to justify knife juggling) I balance the risk versus the advantages. Aerobatics for warbirds adds to the risk and gives us little back.
Even though we are dealing with an emotional subject (both with the lives of the pilots and the cherished aircraft), the bottom line has to be statistics and risk management.
Posts: 8,464
By: Bruce - 21st August 2003 at 16:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I stand corrected!
I watched the video again and again after the accident and it was our opinion at the time that he had completed his display and was climbing away. I've not read the report for a while - too many memories! I knew the flight engineer very well, and had been involved with the mosquito (from a distance) for some time.
Cheers
Bruce
Posts: 1,537
By: Bradburger - 21st August 2003 at 16:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
patb,
If all the accidents that had involved Warbirds happened whilst they were doing aero's, then I think you would have a justified argument.
As for flying in a straight line, well look what happened to poor old Alan Martin in LF363!
As to those who say "Leave the aerobatics to the Pitts etc" well I can't understand that either. These type of aircraft are designed to and do real aerobatics. I mean, when was the last time you saw a Spitfire do a Lomcovak and pull 8G?
Obviously the risks increase the lower to the ground you go, whether the display is aerobatic or non, but I think I'd feel safer in the back of a Mustang doing a low level aerobatic display than in the back of a car on the M25!
Bruce,
No problem!
It was a real tragedy when she and the crew were lost.
The strange thing for me was that I hadn't seen RR299 in the flesh for a number of years until one day in 1996 as I was walking around our town; I heard the sound of a familiar aero engine. As I looked up I was privileged with the sight of her flying at about 1500 ft en route to Shoreham.
A month or so later she was gone.
Quite a moment!
Cheers
Paul
Posts: 16,832
By: Moggy C - 21st August 2003 at 16:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Shame you've never seen the Breitlings. I'd try and catch them next time they display if I were you.
;)
Moggy
Posts: 4,169
By: Yak 11 Fan - 21st August 2003 at 17:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have watched the Frightening Blighters on a number of occasions and undoubtably they are spectacular, however I am not keen on their display due to the fact that they are so close together. I fall into the camp of enjoying the more sedate warbird displays from a personal preference however I fail to see how an out right ban on Warbird Aerobatics will significantly change things.