***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 2 *****
==========================================================
Yet another air display crash....
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34027260
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 5 Sep 15 at 17:13
|
And condolences to all those affected. This one looks to have incurred casualties who were not at the airshow, merely using the road.
I've watched the video on the BBC site and it seems another of those crashes where a small amount of extra hight would have prevented the crash as the Hawker was starting to level out.
I've commented as even though they have removed the actual impact, I cannot see the video being on the BBC site for long but it is the same one as in the second link with crash not redacted.
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Sat 22 Aug 15 at 16:44
|
Very sad.
Some papers have pictures of a car with the roof sliced off. I fear the worst and would be happy to be proved wrong.
|
BBC reporting 7 dead.
I was at Airbourne last weekend. So many thousands enjoy these shows it is a terrible shame when they end like this.
|
This time last year I was driving to pick my eldest up and recall being held up by the crowds at the airshow.
The A27 runs right past the end of the runway and at the other end is the main coast railway.
|
>> This time last year I was driving to pick my eldest up and recall being
>> held up by the crowds at the airshow.
>>
>> The A27 runs right past the end of the runway and at the other end
>> is the main coast railway.
Numerous accidents and near misses over the years, at least as far back as the break up of the De Haviland 110 at Farnborough in 1952*, mean manoeuvres are performed so that no aircraft or wreckage can go into the crowd. I suspect this one will mean more thought has to be given to vulnerable sites outside the aerodrome. Some venues will probably become unusable for display purposes as a result.
*According to a prompt edit Wiki today's are the first ground fatalities at a UK airshow since then.
|
Looks like it has been busy in the area today. An Augusta Helicopter has been flying around Brighton pier for some time this afternoon. (Coastgurard from Lydd?)
www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/g-cijx/#7330436
|
This is in our area and we quite often use the A27 to go to the coast. Of course one is unlikely to be hit by an old supersonic strike fighter on the road, but I'm glad we weren't there yesterday.
The pilot may have been hoping to land, although it's hard to tell from the clip. If he was, he cocked it up pretty badly.
|
From one watch of the video (I'm not repeating it) the plane appears to come out of the loop, suddenly loose perhaps 80 feet and regain near level flight, but at that point, the airfield is at a slight rise, so a crash is inevitable.
I don't know if jet engines can do a partial flame out, but I have to admit, a flame out or interruption to the fuel supply must on the list of possible causes.
|
|
They can surge, that'll cause a lack of thrust.
|
|
Pilot 'recovering in hospital' according to DM so presumably he can help explain what went wrong.
|
>> Pilot 'recovering in hospital' according to DM so presumably he can help explain what went
>> wrong.
>
Well he can't have survived that crash surely, so must have ejected. Watched the vid didn't see him
|
>> Well he can't have survived that crash surely, so must have ejected. Watched the vid
>> didn't see him
>>
*If* he did more likely the front fuselage split off on impact and was thrown clear. I don't think many of the historic FJ have their ejection seats working.
|
>> >> Well he can't have survived that crash surely
>>
>> FWIW it says he was 'pulled from the burning wreckage':
>> www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3207016/Pilot-pulled-burning-wreckage-plane-crashes-Shoreham-Airshow.html
Remarkable survival then
|
|
One of the witnessed mentioned that the 'plane "Split in two on impact"
|
|
It would make sense as to how the pilot survived, the aircraft broke along the centre/front fuselage line. The front broke clear, not as unlikely as many would think.
|
|
Makes sense...one presumes that it is constructed so that the cockpit bit bolts on as a separate unit to the fuselage....(strange terminology isn't it)
|
|
Generally FJ are built in three sections front/centre/rear fuselage sections and are riveted together. An impact in the right force may well throw one section clear by splitting the two apart. It's happened before.
|
Looks to me that the pilot ejected at the last moment.
Latest pictures seem to show the canopy open and an ejector seat surrounded by flames some height above.
|
|
That was my reading of the photo as well. But I wasn't sure enough to comment.
|
>> That was my reading of the photo as well. But I wasn't sure enough to
>> comment.
It certainly looks like an ejector seat but like Rob I wasn't sufficiently sure to say so.
What's also noticeable in that picture is the number of spectators watching from the roadside. I'd be amazed if some of them were not amongst the casualties and it's no surprise the police think they might find more.
|
>> It certainly looks like an ejector seat but like Rob I wasn't sufficiently sure to
>> say so.
Missed the edit. The picture I'm referring to is this one:
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/22/shoreham-air-show-crash-sussex-police-bodies#img-3
|
It was a very hot day in the summer holidays on the coast in a crowded part of the country major main road, major crowded spectator event happening near by and only (so far) 7 dead.
bit of a miracle really
|
>>>> It was a very hot day in the summer holidays on the coast in a
>> crowded part of the country major main road, major crowded spectator event happening near by
>> and only (so far) 7 dead.
>>
>> bit of a miracle really
>>
Agreed. Photos in the Mail shows the doomed aircraft just above the A27 with a long queue of traffic stationary at the lights, including a bus. It could have been an absolute disaster if it had come down a couple of hundred yards sooner.
|
I don't think it's an ejection seat, it's not quite the same shape, there's no sign of the rocket motors initiating. I'm not sure what sort of canopy system the hunter had but normally they are either MDC* or have a set of rocket motots themselves to get rid of the canopy or some have both. FJs of that age won't have zero/zero seats so would have to manual seperate from the seat and at that height I don't think he would have had enough time.
If look at some of the other pics, the a/c is about 12 feet off the ground and no sign of ejection.
* Miniture detention cord, it's an explosive charge built into the transparency of the canopy to shatter the perspex so the seat/s have a clear path through.
|
|
I wouldn't have thought it had the MDC system at that age. As someone mentioned there's a fair chance the seat wasn't functional...certainly not a zero zero seat. (Did a course at an RAF base many moons ago on Ejector Seats...long story)
|
>> I wouldn't have thought it had the MDC system at that age.
I'm not sure when it became standard but I'm fairly sure I can see the emergency handle external that operates canopy jettison and or the MDC. Might have just rocket motors on the canopy.
|
There should be plenty of images online of the actual aircraft..
|
|
Just the rocket motors then, I thought I could see the handle. Nice find btw.
|
Probably time that these geriatric aircraft were grounded. Too much risk for what is only a bit of entertainment for a crowd and a hobby for a few
|
Nothing like putting the cat amongst pigeons ;)
Anyway where's ON ?
|
|
Similar to the Gnat that went down at Carfest North that I was unfortunate enough to see... 3 fatal crashes in a month in UK airspace; not a good time
|
How will you justify that statement of the AAIB report reveals it was nothing to do with the age of the aircraft?
Far more 'non geriatric' aircraft have crashed this year. Best shut down Heathrow just in case.
|
Any military jet is a potential hazard. It is basically a flying bomb with the potential to kill and injure a lot of people if things go wrong. Older aircraft are inherently more unreliable than newer designs however well they are maintained
There is no reason whatsoever to fly these things other than for entertainment and to satisfy the ambitions of hobbyists.
If they cannot be flown safely without endangering the lives of the public then clearly they should not be flown at all. There is no need for them to be in the air. Today's event would point to that being the case
|
>> Any military jet is a potential hazard. It is basically a flying bomb with the
>> potential to kill and injure a lot of people if things go wrong.
So you want the Airforce grounded as well?
>>Older aircraft
>> are inherently more unreliable than newer designs however well they are maintained
Unproven and untrue.
>> If they cannot be flown safely without endangering the lives of the public then clearly
>> they should not be flown at all. There is no need for them to be
>> in the air. Today's event would point to that being the case
I'll wait for the AAIB report rather than your unqualified conclusions thank you.
|
Both civil aviation and military aviation pose risks but as a society we accept that the dangers that come with them are necessary evils.
We do not need air shows. They are a source of entertainment and enjoyment for some certainly but we could manage without them. If certain elements of such shows are so dangerous that non participants of such shows are killed or injured as a result of allowing them to take place then such elements of those shows should be banned.
I'd be surprised if that is not the majority view of the public and indeed the relevant authorities.
|
>> We do not need air shows. They are a source of entertainment and enjoyment for
>> some certainly but we could manage without them. If certain elements of such shows are
>> so dangerous that non participants of such shows are killed or injured as a result
>> of allowing them to take place then such elements of those shows should be banned.
>>
>> I'd be surprised if that is not the majority view of the public and indeed
>> the relevant authorities.
So, given that, Football should be banned because of the number of deaths in stadia disasters. (far more than air shows over history)
Motor racing should be banned, far more competitor deaths than spectator or competitor deaths over the years,
Swimming should be banned as well by the way. Far more have drowned doing that recreation than those killed in air shows.
|
If you attend a football game, a motor race or go swimming you are, to a degree consenting to run the risk associated with such acts.
If you are driving down the A27 you are not in any way consenting to the risk of being killed by a crashing jet from a nearby air show.
|
>>If you are driving down the A27 you are not in any way consenting to the risk of being killed by a crashing jet from a nearby air show.>>
Have you thought just how long the odds against such an accident happening would normally be accepted?
|
|
There is no reason why the possibility of such an event should be acceptable whatever the odds. I doubt whether the relatives of the dead and injured will be comforted by knowing that it was statistically unlikely.
|
>> There is no reason why the possibility of such an event should be acceptable whatever
>> the odds. I doubt whether the relatives of the dead and injured will be comforted
>> by knowing that it was statistically unlikely.
I doubt the relatives of the tragically killed would want their legacy to be the withdrawal of entertainment for hundreds and thousands of people either.
(guilt trip aint working either sunshine)
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 22 Aug 15 at 21:36
|
>> I doubt whether the relatives of the dead and injured will be comforted by knowing that it was statistically unlikely.
No, they won't be. But unless they're half-witted they will know that these things happen.
|
>> >>If you are driving down the A27 you are not in any way consenting to
>> the risk of being killed by a crashing jet from a nearby air show.>>
>>
>> Have you thought just how long the odds against such an accident happening would normally
>> be accepted?
>>
Pretty sure that if I set off to ride down the A27 I'd be more concerned about the government's apathetic approach to bike safety and driver attitude than the possibility of being squished in a freak accident involving a 50-year-old supersonic fighter jet.
|
>> If you are driving down the A27 you are not in any way consenting to
>> the risk of being killed by a crashing jet from a nearby air show.
Some of them may have been driving to get a good view of the airshow.
|
>>If you are driving down the A27 you are not in any way consenting to the risk of being killed by a crashing jet from a nearby air show.
No. But one can choose what type of society one wishes to live in.
A boring, colourless yet largely risk free, existence can be wanted, requested and campaigned for. And perhaps you would choose to do that.
Or one can choose to live in a more interesting, varied, and adventurous environment, which will involve risk and occasional occurrences. Which is where I would choose to live.
In my world millions of kids play conkers, even if 1 child spectator ever 100 years is blinded. I guess in yours they would not.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 22 Aug 15 at 21:33
|
>> We do not need air shows. They are a source of entertainment and enjoyment for
>> some certainly but we could manage without them.
We don't need football matches either. Occasionally - Ibrox, Hillsborough etc and numerous off stadium violent incidents - such events are so dangerous that non patiipants are killed or injured.
After football matches Air Displays are amongst the largest audience attendance events in UK.
Let's wait and see what went wrong here before we react.
|
>>I'd be surprised if that is not the majority view of the public and indeed the relevant authorities.>>
The resort where I live has an annual air show and has done so for many years.
It attracts many, many thousands of people for the two-day event, so many in fact that there are traffic jams for miles around long before and after the event is held.
Sadly, as in all areas of life, there have been accidents at such events over the years, but if we dialled out every level of danger from the cradle to the grave we would live a very boring existence.
In the case of this accident, apart from the pilot (how he survived the crash in any way is astonishing), those who lost their lives were not actually at the air show, but on a main road. That is something for which you cannot legislate.
|
>> There is no reason whatsoever to fly these things other than for entertainment and to
>> satisfy the ambitions of hobbyists.
And all things being equal those are pretty good reasons to continue doing so.
Ok, these things crash occasionally and sometimes kill their pilots. Folks flying old jets (or old prop planes like Spitfires, Hurricanes or even 1950 vintage Cessnas) know they're taking that risk. Even if the Wiki entry I saw earlier saying this is first non-aviator fatality at a UK airshow since 1952 is wrong the number of 'innocent' deaths over 63yrs is vanishingly small.
As I've already said in this thread I think this one will result in some tighter protections for vulnerable locations outwith the airfield boundary being built into display authorisations. Let's though wait for the accident report before jumping to conclusions.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 22 Aug 15 at 20:47
|
>>There is no reason whatsoever to fly these things other than for entertainment and to satisfy the ambitions of hobbyists.
If one took those two things as insufficient justification for anything then life would be a fairly joyless existence.
I realise that we have a history in this country of frequent air accidents at shows killing innocent people on the ground, they happen pretty much every 60 years without fail. But we should be able to work out how to survive the population devastation.
|
Anyone remember the DH110 disaster at Farnborough? The airframe broke up somehow at the end of a near-supersonic swoop, so that the aircraft as it were almost stopped in mid-air. Both engines simply tore out of the airframe and hurtled into the crowd, killing quite a few and injuring many.
Hawker Hunter if I remember correctly could just about cross the sound barrier given a decent dive first. Good-looking machine it was. US products were uglier but faster.
They all made the most horrendous noise though.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 22 Aug 15 at 21:24
|
Very tragic,you don't expect to be killed by a airplane driving home.
|
One of the cars hit was a wedding car.
I hope that it hadn't picked up the wedding couple.
Photos in the papers look bad. There are several damaged cars and police are saying that there may be others unaccounted for at the moment who they think were standing on grass verges to watch.
Last year I recall there were many people on the grass verge and near the layby just to the west of the airfield and near what used to be the Sussex Pad pub just standing and watching for free.
|
|
I saw the decapitated wedding car on the news ...a Daimler limo ?
|
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3207016/Pilot-pulled-burning-wreckage-plane-crashes-Shoreham-Airshow.html
A quite amazing photo (looks like a video still) showing the moment of impact from the roadside view perspective. You can actually see the canopy open at the moment of impact. Incredible.
|
|
Went to an Air show as a nipper. Can remember a bit but not much. I am aware that the odds of this sort of thing happening are small in relation, but not for me. Too much old airframe, older Pilots, bit of showmanship and of course trying to loop the loop in an old bus at an air show obviously full of punters and close to a major road could be a recipe for D........
|
>> old airframe, older Pilots, bit of showmanship and of course trying to loop the loop in an old bus at an air show obviously full of punters and close to a major road could be a recipe for D........
None of that counts. RAF fighter pilots are nutters or they would do something else. Strike fighters are extremely violent machines designed for violence. Sometimes something goes wrong and there's a mess. It was always like that.
If you spectate, and don't know that, you're just an idiot.
|
I once thought of joining the Fleet Air Arm, until my father (a R.N. engineer in the FAA) told me how many trainee pilots were lost in training! (Early 1950s, so no VTOLs, just hairy landings on carriers)
|
>> hairy landings on carriers
Fleet Air Arm were even worse nutters. The carrier would head into the wind as fast as it could go, and the aircraft would try to land on the bucking deck as far back as possible, hanging their hooks down to catch the numerous cables strung across the deck. If they missed those they might not stop in time, and run over the end of the deck being run over in their turn by the ship. Some managed to turn the power on again and escape into the air, but many others plunged at full power into the sea.
You had to trust everyone including yourself, but you could still go down.
I knew a navy pilot briefly in the early sixties, boyfriend of a friend of mine. He was quite a good car driver I seem to remember, although other passengers tended to get nervous.
|
14,000 British pilots died in WWI. 8,000 of them in training accidents.
In 1917 new pilots lasted an average 18 days once they reached the front.
Now *THAT'S* scary.
|
Pilot's day job is reported to be flying an Airbus for BA. Fairly common situation I think.
Michael 'Hoof' Proudfoot who piloted Spitfires in quite a few TV dramas, including LWT's 'A Piece of Cake' flew Boeings for what was then Britannia Airways for his main living. Proudfoot himself was killed in 1996 displaying a P38 Lightning at Duxford.
www.independent.co.uk/incoming/obituary--sqn-ldr-hoof-proudfoot-1329383.html
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 23 Aug 15 at 09:15
|
|
A whole lotta killjoys here - I thought that was MY function!
Last edited by: Roger. on Sun 23 Aug 15 at 11:13
|
|
This time in Switzerland at an air show, two a/c collided it seems.
|
Why these air shows always run 50-yr old aircrafts? While I am not expert in this field by any means, I do think these aircrafts are inherently dangerous.
They were originally built for fighting and probably pilots who flew them died prematurely in battle ground. Thus design of these aircrafts are probably not proven (because they didn't last long enough in service). At this age, pilots who fly them, probably do only little practice before the shows.
Why not run these shows with modern fighter aircrafts? Aircraft and electronics techlogies moved a lot in last 50 years.
|
|
Because there's plenty of demand for them, people want to see them. There's lots of airshows and people willing to pay to go to them. Modern a/c do get involved.
|
Yes. All flying is inherently dangerous actually, but people want to see warplanes cavorting in all their evil beauty.
Do you think young pilots would be better - safer - than old ones movilogo? I don't think I do.
|
Not to say they can't be airworthy. Lebanon apparently still had them for fighting with until last year.
Intuitively though you would have to say that a simple aircraft such as a Tiger Moth would be easier to certify convincingly than a complex beast such as a jet fighter. Whether there is any truth to that I don't know. Aircraft and engines of that era were certainly less inherently reliable than today's, and military ones probably more so.
A pal of mine works for Martin Baker. They still have a flying Gloster Meteor, used for testing.
|
Shuttleworth have all sorts of stuff over 100 years old they still fly: www.shuttleworth.org/the-collection/
My favourite's the WW2 Fieseler Storch. I've seen it go backwards in a good breeze. You wouldn't believe what a good pilot can do with it.
|
>> My favourite's the WW2 Fieseler Storch. I've seen it go backwards in a good breeze.
>> You wouldn't believe what a good pilot can do with it.
Long time since I saw the Storch fly backwards at Greenham Common. Probably either 79 or 80.
Talking STOL machines it seems as though Mike Collett is breaking up his historic Classic Airforce collection. The odds on the SA Twin Pioneer G-APRS flying again have lengthened considerably.
I missed the chance to fly on her around 15yrs ago 'cos the crew were slack on turnrounds and ran out of time ahead of a display.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 23 Aug 15 at 20:48
|
I only know about the Storch because the Dark Intruder flew one in a Biggles book.
Not_sad_of_Santiago.
|
>> I only know about the Storch because the Dark Intruder flew one in a Biggles
>> book.
My worse "woo sad git or what" moment was at Duxford. We had a work day out there, and wandering around someone said "whats that silly little plane dangling from the ceiling"
With a nanosecond glance at said thing dangling from the ceiling I said "Fieseler Fi 156 Storch"
And NOT from a Biggles book. It was used as a long range reconnaissance for the Kriegsmarine and I read it in some navy yarn, may have been a Douglass Reeman novel.
|
Just wandered off to Google thinking to look up Douglas Reeman; read a couple of reviews and thought; "interesting, I wonder why I haven't heard of him"
And then it said "uses the pseudonym Alexander Kent". FFS, Him, I know.
|
>> Why these air shows always run 50-yr old aircrafts? While I am not expert in
>> this field by any means, I do think these aircrafts are inherently dangerous.
All aircraft are inherently dangerous - flight is not a state the human form can achieve unassisted. If the assistance gives up flight is impossible.
The Hunter is no way unproven. It first flew in 1951 and entered RAF service in 1954. For a few weeks in 1953 it held the world speed record for jet aircraft. I watched Swiss Airforce examples practice dogfights over lake Lucerne in 1983 and it flew with the RAF as a trainer until the nineties.
We've so far no idea why this crash occurred. Even if the particular Hunter's age was a factor it doesn't mean the problem is incurable and that grounding all old planes is the only option.
|
>> We've so far no idea why this crash occurred. Even if the particular Hunter's age was a factor
Pilot error seems likely. The Hunter is beautiful but getting on a bit. That could have been a contributing factor.
|
>> Pilot error seems likely. The Hunter is beautiful but getting on a bit. That could
>> have been a contributing factor.
Or pilot incapacitation? something obstructing the controls? - a piston engined aerobatic 'plane crashed just down the road at Towcester due a loose screwdriver jamming the elevator.
|
>> loose screwdriver jamming the elevator.
'Loose'? Good God, that's outrageous. Someone is responsible. Bet he's keeping his head down now...
|
>> Why not run these shows with modern fighter aircrafts? Aircraft and electronics techlogies moved a
>> lot in last 50 years.
but whats not changed is the fact that old or new they all fly on the edge of the stability envelope.
People are not going to go to an airshow to see a poxy learjet or piper cub.
|
In 30 years time, there is a good chance the Meteor, the Spitfires, any remaining Hunters etc are still airworthy, but I find it impossible to believe any current plane will still be flying. Complex electronics and a complicated design will ground them. Anyone got a Lightning still flying?
Same is true of old cars, my 1930 Morgan will still work in 30 years, and it'll run on methanol if that's all one can get (just put a bigger jet in the carburettor). But will a car you can buy new now?
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Sun 23 Aug 15 at 21:36
|
>>Anyone got a Lightning still flying?
Not in this country, they can't get certification as they are too complicated to maintain but I believe Thunder City in South Africa still fly 4 and think James May did a TV program a few years back featuring one.
There one that was at Southend Airport that is allowed to taxi and race up the runway but that is all.
It is my favorite boyhood fighter jet.
(Vulcan is cool too.)
|
>> >>Anyone got a Lightning still flying?
>>
>> Not in this country, they can't get certification as they are too complicated to maintain
>> but I believe Thunder City in South Africa still fly 4
Only One. XS452 was flying last year. Who knows if they can still keep it in the air.
|
I can't remember for sure, but is the Lightning the one with over-and-under engines, like a skeet shotgun?
If so I can remember one doing a fabulous, thunderous near-vertical climb. Pilots must have loved the thing if they could overcome their terror...
|
>> I can't remember for sure, but is the Lightning the one with over-and-under engines, like
>> a skeet shotgun?
Yup. Two RR Avons with afterburn. First saw one at the SSAFA show at RAF Church Fenton in 1975. Departed more or less vertically and blew a hole in the clouds.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 23 Aug 15 at 21:50
|
>> There one that was at Southend Airport that is allowed to taxi and race up
>> the runway but that is all.
>>
There's another one at Bruntingthorpe, it's in taxiable condition.
|
>> >> There one that was at Southend Airport that is allowed to taxi and race
>> up
>> >> the runway but that is all.
>> >>
>>
>> There's another one at Bruntingthorpe, it's in taxiable condition.
Sometimes the unexpected happens when doing a fast taxi at Bruntingthorpe....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGjPu6DPzWU
|
>>Sometimes the unexpected happens when doing a fast taxi at Bruntingthorpe....
The Victor is an mean looking plane. Very impressive.
|
As far as I'm aware we don't have Lightning at Southend.
We do have XLS426, a preserved Vulcan, that is exactly the state you describe, taxiable with fast runs down runway. IIRC, they got into a bit of trouble a couple of years back when they got a tad over-enthuasiastic and it got a couple of feet off the ground; CAA were not amused...
|
The one memorable time I saw a Lightning at Southend was 1968 for the 20th anniversary of it being a civil airport.
Lightning raced down the runway literally got a few feet off the ground, stood on it's tail, put on the after-burners and went vertically to 30,000ft in a stupidly low number of seconds.
A very impressed 11 year old boy.
On the same day saw a Lancaster and a Lincoln for the first time along with the RAF Falcons jumping from an Argosy.
Fell in love with planes on that day and saw the Moon landings barely a year later.....
Last edited by: Cockle on Mon 24 Aug 15 at 02:16
|
>> 1930 Morgan will still work in 30 years, and it'll run on methanol if that's all one can get (just put a bigger jet in the carburettor). But will a car you can buy new now?
Yes, with the right tweaks. It will be expensive though.
|
>> In 30 years time, there is a good chance the Meteor, the Spitfires, any remaining
>> Hunters etc are still airworthy, but I find it impossible to believe any current plane
>> will still be flying. Complex electronics and a complicated design will ground them. Anyone got a Lightning still flying?
I think there will be there, just. Some airbuses will still be floating about, military a/c have 30+ years a/c flying about. But yes they will be boarder line flying, older a/c will still be flying, I know the Lancaster at BBMF is being looked at the 2030-2040 period.
|
Thunder city crashed one of the four, and I thought they'd stopped flying Lightnings (although bits of the web say otherwise). Crash report said the plane basically was not airworthy and I know it to be hideously complicated to maintain.
When the plane left UK service, it was perhaps the last plane to break the sound barrier at an airshow.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx28jWfr80w
|
Not sure how it compares with other types (I think the Harrier had a 'reputation' too) but this list of Lightning mishaps makes alarming reading; typically 5-7 a year lost in routine operations in its frontline heyday in the 1960s and 70s.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_English_Electric_Lightning
Presumably the people who flew them knew this too, which makes you think.
|
>> Not sure how it compares with other types (I think the Harrier had a 'reputation'
>> too) but this list of Lightning mishaps makes alarming reading; typically 5-7 a year lost
>> in routine operations in its frontline heyday in the 1960s and 70s.
Very similar to other types in that era, crashes in the military were very high (unacceptable to todays standard) several times a week. I think there was 7 in one night, Hunters I think in heavy fog all at the same airfield.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Hawker_Hunter_multiple_aircraft_accident.
|
>> Very similar to other types in that era, crashes in the military were very high
>> (unacceptable to todays standard) several times a week. I think there was 7 in one
>> night, Hunters I think in heavy fog all at the same airfield.
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Hawker_Hunter_multiple_aircraft_accident.
It was just after the war, there was still military conflict around the world we were involved in, human life was still cheap.
|
>> It was just after the war, human life was still cheap.
>>
The former was the biggest factor, primarily officers who had fought in the war who by then had risen in the ranks and their general attitude to risk and flying. That's an observation nothing else.
Here is a list for military aircraft crashes for just that year.
www.ukserials.com/losses-1956.htm
|
>> But will a car you can buy new now?
>>
You can add an LPG conversion to any engine. Propane or something similar will presumably always be pretty easy to make from a variety of natural substances?
|
>> Why not run these shows with modern fighter aircrafts? Aircraft and electronics techlogies moved a
>> lot in last 50 years.
Sure, if the organisers can get a few minutes of the very limited hours the RAF allows for aircraft like the Typhoon to display.
But even if they can isn't there something about comparing the modern kit to it's 'grandparents'?
|
Sure, if the organisers can get a few minutes of the very limited hours the RAF allows for aircraft like the Typhoon to display.
>>
It's probably more than most think, but such is the unquenchable thirst for people to see typhoon flying in the airshow circuit it's impossible to satisfy everyone. Best bet is to double up and ask when they are in the area doing another air show.
|
Why do these aircrafts burst into flame upon impact? I think most casualties are due to fire engulfing them.
If the fuel were diesel or battery would it have been the same situation?
|
Why do these aircrafts burst into flame upon impact? I think most casualties are due to fire engulfing them.
If the fuel were diesel or battery would it have been the same situation?
1/ Cos the engine is very hot
2/ Diesel fuel is quite a close fraction compared to jet fuel
In this instance, I rather suspect most casualties will be a result of being hit by it, not the fire.
|
>> Why do these aircrafts burst into flame upon impact? I think most casualties are due
>> to fire engulfing them.
>>
>> If the fuel were diesel
would it have been the same situation?
>>
>> 1/ Cos the engine is very hot
>> 2/ Diesel fuel is quite a close fraction compared to jet fuel
3/ and it is converted into a fine mist upon impact, and even a proper diesel oil will ignite under those circumstances (as does heating oil). Jet fuel has a pretty high flash point, and wont ignite readily with just a single source of ignition. Spray it and it becomes a different proposition.
>>or battery
Too heavy for the available power.
|
My colleague was driving a diesel lorry with 2 batteries on and that exploded in flames upon impact. He died too.
Pat
|
"If they cannot be flown safely.."
Perhaps just a bit more gently, in consideration of age/fatigue? Looping a 50-year old jet is probably pushing it - although I learn from Wiki that they were in service with the Lebanese Air Force until last year!
Last edited by: J Bonington Jagworth on Mon 24 Aug 15 at 19:13
|
|
we still don't know what the cause was - If its pilot error its got nothing to do with the age of the craft.
|
Hawker Hunter T2 Crashes... - R.P.