Just read in Spitfire, The History about the fatal crash of the first prototype.
It describes how the pilot got killed when the plane flipped over on its back. The Radio mast got pushed into the fuselage. The mounting wires from the Sutton harness passed under the radio mast mountings, and the pilot got yanked back into the seat when the radio mast got pushed down, with enough force to deform the seat.
The thing I don’t get, and hence my question…is why did the mounting wires for the harness run all the way to the rear of the fuselage.Would it not be enough to run them to the closest bulkhead or strong point?
It is also stated that they were the reason for the accident in the first place. Being loose, they hung down and tangled in the elevator cables.
Anyone know? Or am I worrying to much about details??
Ken
By: Melvyn Hiscock - 27th February 2006 at 23:22
They are Crown Copyright and so now public domain.
By: VACB - 27th February 2006 at 23:05
Some pictures
Here are some pictures of K5054 after the fateful crash. [RIP Flt Lt G S White]
I think they well illustrate the inherent problem explained earlier.
I am sorry but I don’t have any details in respect of who to credit the pictures to. Please, if I have broken any copyright let me know and I’ll remove the them.
Michael
By: Mark12 - 27th February 2006 at 09:08
Belt up – the missing point.
By the Mk V, the system was as this illustration. To give the pilot flexibility on demand, as current car seat belts, a hand operated spring tensioner device could be operated to release the pilot forward. This required extension distance and ‘operational flow’ to cover the range of pilot’s girth, height and seat adjustment position. It was more a case of operational length rather than ‘find a hard point for fixing’ that determined the rear mounting position.
On the low back aircraft & those fitted with additional fuel tanks behind the pilot, from memory, I believe the seat belts were taken over a roller and through 80/90 degrees to a low mounting point.
Of course the prototype may well have had an inherent problem that was developed out for production aircraft.
Mark
By: Mark V - 27th February 2006 at 08:31
The thing I don’t get, and hence my question…is why did the mounting wires for the harness run all the way to the rear of the fuselage.Would it not be enough to run them to the closest bulkhead or strong point?
They don’t. They are fixed just aft of the cockpit near the radio mast. The rear of the fuselage would be another six feet or so further back.
By: Melvyn Hiscock - 27th February 2006 at 00:29
It’s all in the geometry. The best mounting point is directly behind, not below. Piper Pawnees have the seat belts anchored at the sternpost, the Rearwin has them anchored on a strong point directly behind the nape of the neck. A seat belt that goes down behind you, following the line of your back, is not going to prevent you moving forwards. It will prevent you from leaving your seat upwards but even a small stop will put teeth marks in your instruments.
Draw it out on a piece of paper, it’ll make more sense.
Sign In
February 26, 2006 at 10:56 pm