Replica Sopwith Camel F-AZZC Badly Damaged On Maiden Flight 24 Sept . Pilot OK

Thank you, Propstrike. Google didn’t throw up a link to the facebook page to which you refer – and I’m one of those rare breeds who don’t participate in facebook!

Incidents like this are of course very upsetting for individuals involved, when ones endeavours are suddenly in the public domain, for better or for worse, and I do agree that any outside comment or reporting should be both sensitive and respectful, and any departure from known facts is a perilous path to follow, and usually ends badly.

My description of the short flight was a direct reference to a statement made by the owner/pilot on his facebook page, which includes the following comment ”Thanks Anne very disappointed, would not have been a problem if the engine had kept going, up until then everything was fine. Now need to find out why it stopped.” 25th Sept 19.01 hours .

This thread is beginning to tend toward one of the least appealling traits of this forum, namely speculation as to the cause of an aircraft accident. Whilst I don’t wish to be disrespectful to Propstrike, his initial post is the only refence on this thread to the failure of the Clerget engine being the cause of the crash of this aeroplane. There is no such statement in the France Bleu report, to which the hyperlink is supplied, and I haven’t found anything else definitive online (which, when one thinks about it, is hardly surprising, bearing in mind that the accident happened only eight days ago). So if anyone knows definitively that the crash was caused by the failurre of the Clerget engine, I’d be grateful if they’d draw my attention to the source of such information. But if no-one can, wouldn’t it be better for all to hold their own counsel until a definitive statement is issued?

The risk is that speculation, such as that here, can fuel the ‘slippery slope’ attitude. If it can be argued that 100 year old engines should not be allowed to power aeroplanes that fly, how long is it before some start to argue that 100 year old aeroplanes should not be allowed to fly? Then, maybe, fifty year old aeroplanes? And will the next argument be that, for example, a Moth should be allowed to fly only if its original Gipsy is replaced with a modern Rotax? More often than not it’s better not to engage in speculation without thinking through all the possible consequences of so doing – particularly in the context of the apparent present perception of the British public to the flying of ‘old aeroplanes’.

By all means, let’s not speculate….we wouldn’t want to give the Cleret a bad reputation considering so many are in widespread use. 🙂 🙂 🙂
After all, 100 year old rotary engines are the paragon of reliability.

Glad to see pilot OK. It will be interesting as to what caused the failure. I shan’t speculate on an open investigation!

The manufacturer’s website gives some details of improved materials etc.
http://www.cams.net.nz/Gnome%20Remanufacture.html

Note this is a different approach from The Vintage Aviator’s new-build engines of various types.

That’s good news, but will the new ones be any more reliable?
In other words, have they reengineered any of the design’s weak points?

New Gnomes are being made in New Zealand, in fact the sister plane to this is due to have the third one of the production line.

Steve.

That’s a shame…

A friend’s recently overhauled Le Rhone failed in flight with a happier outcome.

The originals are getting very old, are there ways to improve reliability or better yet, produce new examples?

🙁 Oh blimey ,that must be soul destroying 🙁

Ouch!

Glad the pilot escaped ok, what a sad end to the work put in, unfortunately what can you do when the motor packs up.

I take it that id did not land on that trailer?

Very sad to see. Glad everyone is ok.

Steve

Obviously I’m happy pilot is ok. This is so sad. The effort put into these by John and his team is absolutely benchmark and outstanding. The word replica, in this case, means almost identical.

How absolutely gutting is that 🙁

Rob