1980 Biggin Hill Invader Crash (New Thread)

Utterley endorse what you say in post # 93 Wyvernfan. Am puzzled as to why pagen01 wants to close down the discussion and have the thread removed.

Planemike…………..

Paul (Bradburger), many thanks for starting this thread, for now i have finally read a piece of evidence that answers a question i have had for a long time.. namely was the roll rehearsed or practised before.

According to Keith Sissons letter in Flight 14th Aug 1981, “that fatal roll was not an unrehearsed sudden notion. Bullock had practised with an A-26 instructor during the previous year and had flown the manouevre at shows earlier that season, prior to which he had told me that he would not introduce it into his routine until he was thoroughly satisfied that he had perfected it”.

… therefore allow it to continue so individuals can contribute to it if they so wish.. Trying to pretend it never happened is not the answer.!

[EDIT] If the Mods feel the need to lock this thread, then please do so.

Thank you, but we have no need of your permission.

Moggy
Moderator

I do think the original post was a thinly veiled attempt to argue about this all over again.

No, it wasn’t, and that’s a rather bold accusation if I may say so.

It’s possible you didn’t read my initial post properly, and missed my final words:-

(Maybe the Mods might want to lock this thread so it doesn’t go down the road of the other two).

As the other two threads had been locked, I thought those that wanted to find out more could do so from the link I posted, with hopefully no more discussion or new posts on the subject due to the way the other threads went, as I pointed out in my initial post.

And there was no need to ‘argue’ about it again. This thread was a pointer to a site with a lot of information on the accident, and not intended to restart discussion on it. :rolleyes:

Whilst there has been some interesting comments in the thread, I agree that there have also been some rather inaccurate & ill-informed ones too, but that will always happen whenever an accident occurs or is discussed (be it car, aeroplane, or whatever).

Cheers

Paul

The level of positive G will not affect the action of pouring out a drink.

If it’s 1G or 6G the drink will still pour straight ‘down’.

However Hoover was a superb pilot and I’d guess he kept the positive G loading very low anyway.

Moggy

🙂 Not going to get involved in any theories or arguments but could Galdri or a qualified pilot explain the Bob Hoover roll whilst pouring out a cup of drink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp2Uc9XvmjY

Thanks 🙂

Not barrel rolled, but aileron rolled my friend. A whole lot of difference.

In ‘Jet Age Test Pilot’
‘Tex’ Johnston describes Barrel Rolling both the 707 prototype and the last B47 out of the witchita plant using 1’G’ to keep positive ‘g’ on the airframe.
It is a good book

regards baz

I have read about large a/c being barrel rolled using very little ‘G’ (1 -2 ?) inc B47 by ‘Tex’ Johnson,

Not barrel rolled, but aileron rolled my friend. A whole lot of difference.

As both of the previous threads on this subject have been locked, I thought I’d let those that were interested in the details of this terrible accident know of a site that has all the details you probably wanted to know

Now can it be seen why the other threads have been locked and why this one should never have got anywhere, prefferably with the Mods removing it?

These touchy subjects always descend into useless arguments about should’ve and what ifs – alot of it utterly pointless.

I do think the original post was a thinly veiled attempt to argue about this all over again.
A genuine thread on lessons learned about flight safety from past accidents can be done in a far better manner and without recourse to one very contentious incident.

A Barrel roll is basically a loop where the aircraft is rolled around to make an arch around the loop. To fly it, you pull sharply into a loop (depending on aircraft type, but typically around 3.0-4.0 g), at the same time you roll so as to achive 90° off axis at the apex of the loop and continue the loop/roll to achive level flight, wings level on more or less the original heading.

I was taught a slightly different barrel roll technique using just enough positive ‘G’ to keep the carb float ‘floating’ 😀 and I have read about large a/c being barrel rolled using very little ‘G’ (1 -2 ?) inc B47 by ‘Tex’ Johnson,
personally I hated barrel rolls…always made me feel sick,but i enjoyed the ‘elegant’ manoevers like Chandelles atc

cheers baz

This really is a thread going nowhere.

I cannot blame Galdri for dropping out of it.

Personally I can’t wait for it to fall off the bottom of the page so I no longer have to visit it.

Moggy

Sorry Moggy. Just could not help myself making a reply. I´m just waiting for the “how wrong you are” replys:D:D I do not know anything about this and am just sat in my cosy armchair. In my armchair I know EVERYTHING:D:D I can even teach you how to fly the perfect display routine in a Whirlwind fighter without ever having seen the thing:D

I´m stupid, I know, being drawn into a sandbox like this.

I said I´d not participate any further in this thread a few minutes ago, and I´m already breaking that promise:eek:

Just a quick note to all of you, barrel roll and aileron roll are two different beasts altogether. They are miles apart in stesses on the airframe!

I do not know if my english is good enough to descripe the differences, but here goes.

A Barrel roll is basically a loop where the aircraft is rolled around to make an arch around the loop. To fly it, you pull sharply into a loop (depending on aircraft type, but typically around 3.0-4.0 g), at the same time you roll so as to achive 90° off axis at the apex of the loop and continue the loop/roll to achive level flight, wings level on more or less the original heading.

An Aileron roll on the other hand is a much simpler thing, both for the pilot and the airframe. Pull the nose up in a straight line to about 20° (airplanes may vary to the exact angle) with about 1.2-1.5 g acceleration, when at 20° pitch up, centralize the elevator and apply maximum aileron with co-ordinated rudder. At the end of the roll, the aircraft should finish with about 20° nose down attitude. The altitude gained with the 20° nose up pull should be preserved, so with about 1.5 g pull out from the resaulting dive you should end up at more or less the same altitude as when you started.

Slow rolls are a different beast altogether.

This is how the maestro of Icelandic aerobatics taught me. If he is wrong with all his hours, fair enough!

This really is a thread going nowhere.

I cannot blame Galdri for dropping out of it.

Personally I can’t wait for it to fall off the bottom of the page so I no longer have to visit it.

Moggy

…as an aside.

‘Connie’ Edwards once told me that in the then current Warbird terms and loadings, an experienced A-26 pilot could stay with, and on the tail of, a P-51 in the hands a ‘rookie’ pilot.

He operated both types. 🙂

Mark

Maybe so…but I’ll bet he would not roll/invert the a/c at low altitude,almost any a/c can be barrel rolled,but at a safe altitude you can ‘fall out of the bottom’ without hitting anything large and hard,how many of us never made/make mistakes whilst flying ??

regards baz

Thanks G
You posted it just after one of mine,so I was just checking 😀

regards baz

Anybody in particular G ?
A bit of a vague comment to say the least !
regards B

If I start calling names this will get ugly very quickly, so I´ll refrain from doing so. There are three posters at the top of the “amazement” list for me. You are not on that list, if that makes you feel any better.

This will be my last input on this thread, I think, unless something even more spectacular turns up. I´ll, however, turn to this thread if I want to see “experts” at work.

It would be nice, however, if all of those posting their “expert” views on the topic would include their credentials regarding display flying and warbird experience. It would take out a lot of the background clutter. Armchair aviators who have never flown anything, let alone a display with all the rules and regulations that comes with that, simply have no idea of what it is all about. One failed (stupid) roll at an airshow almost 30 years ago, is not applicable to airshows today.

To set an example, I´d like to have my own credential visible. I´ve done some aerobatic displays at airshows (about 20) in a CAP-10 and a numerous airshow appearances in J-3/PA-11 Cubs. Not a lot, I know, but a fair bit more than some of the “experts”

Over and out.

Regards,
Sigurjon

Further to my previous post,and to add to Skybolts comment about visible stress on the wing structure, the basic problem is that a bomber is just not built for aerobatics and indeed it is probable that Aerobatics would have been prohibited in the original Flight Manual and possibly placarded as such in the cockpit,I dont know that for sure ,perhaps somebody could confirm/deny for the A26.
Sure people might say that a properly executed barrel roll places no undue strain on the airframe,but if you have a problem/make a mistake whilst inverted at low altitude in a fairly large a/c you simply do not have the control authority/power/systems to escape.
Istr that even the P38 had a limitation on rolling below a certain altitude whilst in service (5000′ ?? but just a guess)

regards baz

Regarding the P-38 (at least H,J,L models).

The pilot manual prohibits snap rolls and caution about aerobatics below 10.000′.

…as an aside.

‘Connie’ Edwards once told me that in the then current Warbird terms and loadings, an experienced A-26 pilot could stay with, and on the tail of, a P-51 in the hands a ‘rookie’ pilot.

He operated both types. 🙂

Mark

I’m not going to take part in the discussion, as I know little of display flying ect, I do however have a copy of the “Pilot training manual for the A-26 Invader”.

Here are a few extracts (sorry for the quality, the full text is available if you PM me):