Spitfire crash Biggin Hill

Author
Discussion

RichB

51,430 posts

283 months

Tuesday 4th August 2015
quotequote all
IforB said:
Trawling through my memory banks, I remember reading somewhere that is was around 12-14:1
Doesn't give you much room does it!

Pan Pan Pan

9,777 posts

110 months

Wednesday 5th August 2015
quotequote all
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
The strongest rule when an engine failure on take off occurs, is do not try to turn back to the airfield. but to choose a suitable landing place as near to straight ahead as possible.
That may be the case for your average Civie flying a Spamcan but it is not a truism across the board.

Aside from the fact that Central Flying School teaches Service pilots how and when to do 'turnbacks', the pilot in this case was Dan Griffiths, a hugely experienced Above the Average ex-Harrier jock and Test Pilot. He probably has more warbird flying hours than most, and I certainly would trust his judgement over most people's.
That is why I asked what height the pilot had achieved. 48 years ago whilst doing my pilot training with a world war two bomber pilot, He drummed it into me that the golden rule was NEVER turn back to the airfield when an EFATO occurs.
A few degrees either side as some have suggested is OK.
Better to land straight ahead with some control, than turn back, massively increasing the wing loading, and losing height (steep turns are an ideal way of losing large amounts of height, and wide turns just take you even further from the airfield) and of course travelling downwind just means yet another (probably steep) turn must be made to align with the airfield.
Turning back `may' allow at best a crosswind landing to be made on the airfield, but this depends
heavily on the aircraft type, its wing loading, and as asked before, what height was achieved during the initial take off.
The instructor told me that during his training the majority of trainee pilots died trying to turn back to the airfield following an EFATO.

Pan Pan Pan

9,777 posts

110 months

Wednesday 5th August 2015
quotequote all
PS. When doing flight training in Harvards, I could cut the power at 1000 ft AGL just before coming overhead the downwind threshold, and then only just barely make it onto the runway.


oyster

12,577 posts

247 months

Friday 7th August 2015
quotequote all
CAPP0 said:
Back to an earlier question of mine - does anyone know what time the crash occurred?
I think it was just before 1pm.

williamp

19,213 posts

272 months

Friday 7th August 2015
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
And they weren't always neatly painted either -

Sorry for the thread creep, but shoudnt that one have the rounded canopy? Thd glass look straight in that pic

FourWheelDrift

88,375 posts

283 months

Friday 7th August 2015
quotequote all
Pass, I thought it was a dummy being painted up but it's a proper MkIXe.

Yertis

18,015 posts

265 months

Friday 7th August 2015
quotequote all
williamp said:
Eric Mc said:
And they weren't always neatly painted either -

Sorry for the thread creep, but shoudnt that one have the rounded canopy? Thd glass look straight in that pic
It does doesn't it... odd.

dr_gn

16,140 posts

183 months

Friday 7th August 2015
quotequote all
williamp said:
Eric Mc said:
And they weren't always neatly painted either -

Sorry for the thread creep, but shoudnt that one have the rounded canopy? Thd glass look straight in that pic
There is no sliding canopy fitted at all.

jamieduff1981

8,022 posts

139 months

Friday 7th August 2015
quotequote all
Pan Pan Pan said:
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
The strongest rule when an engine failure on take off occurs, is do not try to turn back to the airfield. but to choose a suitable landing place as near to straight ahead as possible.
That may be the case for your average Civie flying a Spamcan but it is not a truism across the board.

Aside from the fact that Central Flying School teaches Service pilots how and when to do 'turnbacks', the pilot in this case was Dan Griffiths, a hugely experienced Above the Average ex-Harrier jock and Test Pilot. He probably has more warbird flying hours than most, and I certainly would trust his judgement over most people's.
That is why I asked what height the pilot had achieved. 48 years ago whilst doing my pilot training with a world war two bomber pilot, He drummed it into me that the golden rule was NEVER turn back to the airfield when an EFATO occurs.
A few degrees either side as some have suggested is OK.
Better to land straight ahead with some control, than turn back, massively increasing the wing loading, and losing height (steep turns are an ideal way of losing large amounts of height, and wide turns just take you even further from the airfield) and of course travelling downwind just means yet another (probably steep) turn must be made to align with the airfield.
Turning back `may' allow at best a crosswind landing to be made on the airfield, but this depends
heavily on the aircraft type, its wing loading, and as asked before, what height was achieved during the initial take off.
The instructor told me that during his training the majority of trainee pilots died trying to turn back to the airfield following an EFATO.
A long shot turnback to a flat airfield may be less likely to result in death than controlled flight into a tree trunk or house.

Simpo Two

85,147 posts

264 months

Friday 7th August 2015
quotequote all
dr_gn said:
williamp said:
Eric Mc said:
And they weren't always neatly painted either -

Sorry for the thread creep, but shoudnt that one have the rounded canopy? Thd glass look straight in that pic
There is no sliding canopy fitted at all.
Suggest that's a dead one being tarted up as a decoy.

jamieduff1981 said:
A long shot turnback to a flat airfield may be less likely to result in death than controlled flight into a tree trunk or house.
Well he did say 'A few degrees either side as some have suggested is OK'... as opposed to 'Hey, I think I'll just fly into a house...'

dr_gn

16,140 posts

183 months

Friday 7th August 2015
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
dr_gn said:
williamp said:
Eric Mc said:
And they weren't always neatly painted either -

Sorry for the thread creep, but shoudnt that one have the rounded canopy? Thd glass look straight in that pic
There is no sliding canopy fitted at all.
Suggest that's a dead one being tarted up as a decoy.
It's unlikely a dead one would still have a gunsight fitted.

Pan Pan Pan

9,777 posts

110 months

Saturday 8th August 2015
quotequote all
jamieduff1981 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
The strongest rule when an engine failure on take off occurs, is do not try to turn back to the airfield. but to choose a suitable landing place as near to straight ahead as possible.
That may be the case for your average Civie flying a Spamcan but it is not a truism across the board.

Aside from the fact that Central Flying School teaches Service pilots how and when to do 'turnbacks', the pilot in this case was Dan Griffiths, a hugely experienced Above the Average ex-Harrier jock and Test Pilot. He probably has more warbird flying hours than most, and I certainly would trust his judgement over most people's.
That is why I asked what height the pilot had achieved. 48 years ago whilst doing my pilot training with a world war two bomber pilot, He drummed it into me that the golden rule was NEVER turn back to the airfield when an EFATO occurs.
A few degrees either side as some have suggested is OK.
Better to land straight ahead with some control, than turn back, massively increasing the wing loading, and losing height (steep turns are an ideal way of losing large amounts of height, and wide turns just take you even further from the airfield) and of course travelling downwind just means yet another (probably steep) turn must be made to align with the airfield.
Turning back `may' allow at best a crosswind landing to be made on the airfield, but this depends
heavily on the aircraft type, its wing loading, and as asked before, what height was achieved during the initial take off.
The instructor told me that during his training the majority of trainee pilots died trying to turn back to the airfield following an EFATO.
A long shot turnback to a flat airfield may be less likely to result in death than controlled flight into a tree trunk or house.
That depends on the height the pilot was able to achieve during the initial take off. If the flight was controlled there would be no need to fly into a tree or a house.
Whilst having little, but probably no ability to climb, (depending on what the engine is doing, or more accurately not doing) ,the pilot would still have the ability to determine the direction of the flight.
Of course the media would just describe that as the pilot heroically avoiding a house / school /
hospital , children's nursery etc. but it really just comes down to avoiding hard things like trees houses, schools etc ,and choosing the open space next to these items to set down on.
If there are no open spaces available, the pilot is deep trouble no matter where he points the aircraft.

FourWheelDrift

88,375 posts

283 months

Saturday 8th August 2015
quotequote all
Suggestion on here they might be re-applying paint quickly after it had been washed off due to bad weather before D-Day, the white paint on the wing closest to the fuselage looks like it's been partly washed/worn away as some has used water based paint. And they are quickly painting over it.

http://spitfiresite.com/2007/12/painting-d-day-str...

jamieduff1981

8,022 posts

139 months

Saturday 8th August 2015
quotequote all
Pan Pan Pan said:
jamieduff1981 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
The strongest rule when an engine failure on take off occurs, is do not try to turn back to the airfield. but to choose a suitable landing place as near to straight ahead as possible.
That may be the case for your average Civie flying a Spamcan but it is not a truism across the board.

Aside from the fact that Central Flying School teaches Service pilots how and when to do 'turnbacks', the pilot in this case was Dan Griffiths, a hugely experienced Above the Average ex-Harrier jock and Test Pilot. He probably has more warbird flying hours than most, and I certainly would trust his judgement over most people's.
That is why I asked what height the pilot had achieved. 48 years ago whilst doing my pilot training with a world war two bomber pilot, He drummed it into me that the golden rule was NEVER turn back to the airfield when an EFATO occurs.
A few degrees either side as some have suggested is OK.
Better to land straight ahead with some control, than turn back, massively increasing the wing loading, and losing height (steep turns are an ideal way of losing large amounts of height, and wide turns just take you even further from the airfield) and of course travelling downwind just means yet another (probably steep) turn must be made to align with the airfield.
Turning back `may' allow at best a crosswind landing to be made on the airfield, but this depends
heavily on the aircraft type, its wing loading, and as asked before, what height was achieved during the initial take off.
The instructor told me that during his training the majority of trainee pilots died trying to turn back to the airfield following an EFATO.
A long shot turnback to a flat airfield may be less likely to result in death than controlled flight into a tree trunk or house.
That depends on the height the pilot was able to achieve during the initial take off. If the flight was controlled there would be no need to fly into a tree or a house.
Whilst having little, but probably no ability to climb, (depending on what the engine is doing, or more accurately not doing) ,the pilot would still have the ability to determine the direction of the flight.
Of course the media would just describe that as the pilot heroically avoiding a house / school /
hospital , children's nursery etc. but it really just comes down to avoiding hard things like trees houses, schools etc ,and choosing the open space next to these items to set down on.
If there are no open spaces available, the pilot is deep trouble no matter where he points the aircraft.
I agree with all of that but earlier posts suggest that there's nothing in front but deep valley, woodland and houses departing from that runway.

I general turning back probably isn't ideal, but you're definately going to die when all that's in front of you is trees and buildings restricting your direction to even 30 degs from straight ahead. You've got nothing to lose by trying if that's what you're decending in to.

dr_gn

16,140 posts

183 months

Saturday 8th August 2015
quotequote all
FourWheelDrift said:
Suggestion on here they might be re-applying paint quickly after it had been washed off due to bad weather before D-Day, the white paint on the wing closest to the fuselage looks like it's been partly washed/worn away as some has used water based paint. And they are quickly painting over it.

http://spitfiresite.com/2007/12/painting-d-day-str...
Seems a more likely story - apart from around the insignia and codes, most of the lines look too good to have been painted freehand. There are dozens (in fact the vast majority of what I've seen) of contemporary photos of Sitfires and numerous other aircraft with pretty much perfectly demarcated invasion stripes; certainly nothing that would appear as an obvious error on a small scale model.

Waynester

6,324 posts

249 months

Sunday 9th August 2015
quotequote all
dr_gn said:
Simpo Two said:
dr_gn said:
williamp said:
Eric Mc said:
And they weren't always neatly painted either -

Sorry for the thread creep, but shoudnt that one have the rounded canopy? Thd glass look straight in that pic
There is no sliding canopy fitted at all.
Suggest that's a dead one being tarted up as a decoy.
It's unlikely a dead one would still have a gunsight fitted.
Eric's right, quite often the stripes were applied very quickly, with anything to hand.
Can't quite work out what's beneath the Spit either? Almost looks like a trolley rather than true undercarriage...doesn't look like a slipper tank?
Can't see any aerial connected either.

dr_gn

16,140 posts

183 months

Sunday 9th August 2015
quotequote all
Waynester said:
dr_gn said:
Simpo Two said:
dr_gn said:
williamp said:
Eric Mc said:
And they weren't always neatly painted either -

Sorry for the thread creep, but shoudnt that one have the rounded canopy? Thd glass look straight in that pic
There is no sliding canopy fitted at all.
Suggest that's a dead one being tarted up as a decoy.
It's unlikely a dead one would still have a gunsight fitted.
Eric's right, quite often the stripes were applied very quickly, with anything to hand.
Can't quite work out what's beneath the Spit either? Almost looks like a trolley rather than true undercarriage...doesn't look like a slipper tank?

Can't see any aerial connected either.
It's probably a torpedo type external fuel tank.

Some types of Spitfire had masts but didn't have external aerial wires.

Pan Pan Pan

9,777 posts

110 months

Sunday 9th August 2015
quotequote all
jamieduff1981 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
jamieduff1981 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
The strongest rule when an engine failure on take off occurs, is do not try to turn back to the airfield. but to choose a suitable landing place as near to straight ahead as possible.
That may be the case for your average Civie flying a Spamcan but it is not a truism across the board.

Aside from the fact that Central Flying School teaches Service pilots how and when to do 'turnbacks', the pilot in this case was Dan Griffiths, a hugely experienced Above the Average ex-Harrier jock and Test Pilot. He probably has more warbird flying hours than most, and I certainly would trust his judgement over most people's.
That is why I asked what height the pilot had achieved. 48 years ago whilst doing my pilot training with a world war two bomber pilot, He drummed it into me that the golden rule was NEVER turn back to the airfield when an EFATO occurs.
A few degrees either side as some have suggested is OK.
Better to land straight ahead with some control, than turn back, massively increasing the wing loading, and losing height (steep turns are an ideal way of losing large amounts of height, and wide turns just take you even further from the airfield) and of course travelling downwind just means yet another (probably steep) turn must be made to align with the airfield.
Turning back `may' allow at best a crosswind landing to be made on the airfield, but this depends
heavily on the aircraft type, its wing loading, and as asked before, what height was achieved during the initial take off.
The instructor told me that during his training the majority of trainee pilots died trying to turn back to the airfield following an EFATO.
A long shot turnback to a flat airfield may be less likely to result in death than controlled flight into a tree trunk or house.
That depends on the height the pilot was able to achieve during the initial take off. If the flight was controlled there would be no need to fly into a tree or a house.
Whilst having little, but probably no ability to climb, (depending on what the engine is doing, or more accurately not doing) ,the pilot would still have the ability to determine the direction of the flight.
Of course the media would just describe that as the pilot heroically avoiding a house / school /
hospital , children's nursery etc. but it really just comes down to avoiding hard things like trees houses, schools etc ,and choosing the open space next to these items to set down on.
If there are no open spaces available, the pilot is deep trouble no matter where he points the aircraft.
I agree with all of that but earlier posts suggest that there's nothing in front but deep valley, woodland and houses departing from that runway.

I general turning back probably isn't ideal, but you're definately going to die when all that's in front of you is trees and buildings restricting your direction to even 30 degs from straight ahead. You've got nothing to lose by trying if that's what you're decending in to.
I can fully understand the wish of a pilot who has suffered an engine failure on take off, to want to return to what the pilot knows is a clear area, intended for the use of aircraft, But the official recommendation for coping with this eventuality, is to land straight ahead, or within a maximum of 45 degrees of either side of the take off heading, with the words NEVER TURN BACK TO THE AIRFIELD being high lighted in training manuals for a good reason. Turning back to the airfield is described in some manuals as the `impossible turn'
Height is safety, and as posted before the height a single engine aircraft achieves at the point the engine fails is critical. But without power, the steep turns needed to align the aircraft with the into wind runway (or even a crosswind landing) on the airfield are a certain way of throwing away large amounts of the valuable resource of height in an EFATO situation.
To re align with the into wind runway, could involve up to 4 steep turns, bearing in mind that `any' turn will involve higher wing loadings, and therefore a greatly increased rate of descent, or (without power to compensate for the greatly increased wing loading) even result in a stall.
Wide turns will just take the aircraft further away from the airfield.
Bear in mind that an airfield is not without its own obstacles, boundary fences, hedges, radio masts, VOR installations (even trees at some) houses and other buildings close to the airfield boundary, parked aircraft, aircraft waiting at the threshold of the active. So the airfield (even if it can be reached) is not the safe haven some believe it to be.
P.s with a deep valley ahead this gives the pilot a little longer in the air, which will increase the options available for locating a suitable landing site.

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Sunday 9th August 10:37

IroningMan

10,154 posts

245 months

Sunday 9th August 2015
quotequote all
So what are we seeing in that first photo? Is the aircraft inverted?

FourWheelDrift

88,375 posts

283 months

Sunday 9th August 2015
quotequote all
Not quite, on it's side. It's either a trick of the the Biggin landscape or the starboard wing is broken to have the port wing sticking up like that.