Display Routines-Fast and Low or Lots of Aeros?

RE: Display Routines-Fast and Low or Lots of Aeros?

In defence of the whole Blenheim Team, and in response to a comment in Post36, the Blenheim crash at Denham was caused by pilot error.
The pilot attempted an unpracticed manouver, a touch and go. The throttles were openned too quickly and the engines suffered from what I believe is called ‘Rich cut’. It’s much the same thing as when your car engine floods. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

To further comment on the main thread (which is fantastic to read as we all almost agree!!) I agree with Graham Warners comment in the book written about the above mentioned Blenheim, ‘if an aircraft is the sole remaining example of it’s type, it should remain on the ground, otherwise it should be in the air’. Apologies if this is not a direct quote but I’m sure it’s close.

I know no aeroplane is safe in the air or on the ground, the big hangar fire at Le Bourget which destroyed a large number of historic aircraft, including a Spitfire IX, is a good example of this.

BUT, aeroplanes were built to fly. Looking at Bf109G ‘Black 6’ in Hendon does not give any idea how it compares with a Spitfire V in flight. Seeing them in the air together does. It’s like looking at a stuffed bird in the Natural History Museum, you can tell what it looks like, but that’s only half the story. They were supposed to fly so let them fly.

That is probably a different argument but the point is that flown with care, such as the aeroplanes of the BBMF or Shuttleworth Collection, there is no reason that they won’t last for longer than any of us!

RE: Display Routines-Fast and Low or Lots of Aeros?

Your letter makes some pretty good points SeaFury.The only thing I would say is that an aircraft is not necessarily ‘safe’ when it’s displayed in a museum.The number of aircraft lost in museum and hangar fires probably outwieghs the number lost in accidents over the same time period.Ofcourse the thing to remember here is that when a machine is lost in an accident it often takes atleast one human life with it,and this is surely the most important consideration.

RE: Display Routines-Fast and Low or Lots of Aeros?

I have a view on this topic – and made the follwing contribution to a magazine after the accident to the Mosquito. It sums up my feelings – I tried at the time to sound as level headed as possible, rather than get swept up in the emotion during those terrible days in 1996…

“…the impact of losing two rare aircraft in succession prompted me to consider for the first time the future direction of display flying – and the thought that the two accidents may be a cue for a change of attitude in particular to flying rare and unique types. My thoughts do not attempt to suggest the cause of the recent accidents; that is the job of the accident investigators.

My initial reaction after the news was of shock and disbelief. You just don’t allow yourself to think “what if it crashes”. But the reality is that the Mosquito and P-38 are no more. I am now questioning the viability of continuing to display precious, irreplaceable aircraft in the manner to which we have become accustomed. Perhaps we enthusiasts have been fortunate in that despite increased numbers of airworthy warbirds in recent years, there have actually been few fatal/cat 5 accidents. Here comes the crunch: I consider the odds for a vigorously displayed aircraft’s long term survival to be stacked against it. Why? Here comes the unpalatable truth:

a. Unforeseen technical malfunction, despite the best possible maintenance.

b. Pilot error (or human failings) perhaps eggagerated by demanding flying routines, and/or lack of regular hours on type.

c. A combination of (a) or (b) either before, during, or after a manoeuvre from which the aircraft is unable to continue controlled flight.

The skill of our display pilots, the maintenance excellence of our engineers, and sensible CAA flying display regulations result in fewer accidents and fatalities than earlier days. But we are still losing aircraft. In the UK alone over the last 10 years, we’re looking at one B-17, one Blenheim, two Spitfires, and three Sea Furies. Abroad, amoungst others, one A-26, one B-26, and numerous Spitfires, Furies, and Mustangs. Statistically, in relation to years ahead, we will lose more, including perhaps some rare aircraft recovered from museums where they were previously considered safe for time in memoriam.

So are we to accept that we should enjoy the good times while we can? There is a school of thought that says that aircraft should be displayed in the manner in which they were originally intended to be flown. But out of 100 display sequences for a given aircraft, if there was to take place just one mechanical failure of manoeuvre from which the aircraft was unable to recover, future generations would be denied the sights which we are privileged to see. In addition, a piece of history which in itself is a mechanical time capsule of a bygone age, will be lost.

I consider that with these crashes we have reached a watershed. Now is the time to consider self-imposed or even regulatory operating restrictions or rare and unique types, similar to the Shuttleworth Collections flying safety policy for its own aircraft. CAA, BAPC, operators, pilots, do you have the will and commitment to implement and regulate these restrictions? Or, after the recent tragic crashes, are we to watch future air displays of individual types while quietly holding our breaths?”

I wonder how much things have changed since then.

RE: Display Routines-Fast and Low or Lots of Aeros?

that extract goes to show that if you bend an aircraft often enough its going to break…..like a car or a boat or a bike or a submarine…..and they were being bent often enough!

fatigue as i’m sure your aware is a cumulative factor, and even if the aircraft havent flown operational sorties,with no combat for over a month, that fatigue is inherent in the airframe, until the fatigued parts are replaced.

I find it hard to compare 19 yr old pilots with perhaps 100 total hours against considerably older pilots with literally 1000’s of hours.

aircraft last longer if they are treated properly. And they are certainly treated well today, and certainly within the limits specified by manufacturers or other responsible bodies.

coanda

RE: Display Routines-Fast and Low or Lots of Aeros?

Yes, thanks for sharing those pics with us. I shall, in return, share an extract from the diary, which I just now read:

“Jan 24th 1942. Its over 3 weeks since I last made an entry in this diary, and since then things have gone from bad to worse. The squadron has done very little operational flying and has not had one combat. Against that we have a record number of accidents. Luckily only one was fatal. P/O Van Schaick tore the oleo leg off aircraft ‘T’ on Jan 3rd. Sgt Andrews, a new pilot from the USA, did an aileron turn in ‘V’ our veteran kite and tore the mainplane off. The aircraft disintegrated and pieces were scattered over East Stoke. This happened on January 10th, the same day Sgt Dickson, a New Zealand pilot had to force land ‘R’ at Southend with his engine seized up solid.”

This, of course, has little to do with the topic in hand, but I thought it might be interesting reading.

RE: Display Routines-Fast and Low or Lots of Aeros?

Hi again folks,
Just to clarify my position on this,I’m NOT against aerobatics during displays.My discomfort comes from seeing these machines being pointed at the ground from a not-too-great height.I don’t mind these machines being looped or barrel-rolled or whatever,but sometimes I just feel that they could do with a little more breathing space.I’ve seen some pretty hairy displays in the past,one in particular being Ray Hanna in the PR.XI Spit at Biggin a few years back.He was pulling her out at the bottom of loops at the last,and I mean LAST,moment.A number of other pretty experienced airshow goers raised thier eyebrows to this aswell.At the time I thought it was fantastic,but in hindsight you realise that there was absolutely no margin for error,and I’m not sure I’d even want to see a recording of that display!
I realise these machines are not being stretched to thier limits and that the pilots are extremely capable people,but I just wish they’d play things a tad safer sometimes.
Fantastic Spit pics btw Damien,and congratulations on your first taste of a Spitfire cockpit!I sat in the prototype replica at Tangmere a couple of years back,and it’s amazing how cramped it is and just how little you can see.It was pretty daunting just shutting yourself in the thing,let alone tanking along at 400+mph with a whacking great Merlin roaring away up front.They were brave blokes indeed!

RE: Display Routines-Fast and Low or Lots of Aeros?

Yeah, Ok, point taken. They are still Spitfires (or whatever a/c) when they have been rebuilt (or scratchbuilt) and should be tearing along. That is NOT what I’m against. I WANT to see them roaring along, banking etc. Its the ‘Red – Arrow’ type stuff that I am not keen on, and at low level you get the safety aspect of it. And no, I don’t want to see them static – heaven forbid. But I don’t want to watch them burn either. Or the guy inside them. In all honesty, formation aero teams bore the ##### out of me. The Breitling guys don’t – they are the only ones who don’t. Even then, I question whether I want to see 4 planes miles away frigging around as if they were one plane, or one plane going like a bat out of hell closer. For me, its the the second choice for sure, every time.

(Good thread this btw. About time it got lively on here again, been dead for weeks)

RE: Display Routines-Fast and Low or Lots of Aeros?

I think it’s both refreshing and responsible to discuss the pros and cons of display flying from a safety point of view and try to minimise (to a reasonable degree) the risks involved rather than to wait for an accident and use that as justification to tighten up the regualtions.

I think I am right in thinking that it was the A-26 accident at Biggin Hill that led to the banning of people taking rides during displays. With hindsite, it is amazing that this was allowed in the first place. I am not a Blenhein expert, but did they they lose the first one, not because it lost power on one engine, but because of the position it was in at the time it lost the engine?. It’s not nice to imagine future accidents but part of risk management in all walks of life is to think “what if” and use that to justify tighter regulation.

There has to be more to safety management than simply learning from the last crash

RE: Display Routines-Fast and Low or Lots of Aeros?

“These are warplanes. The fighters were practically designed to do aeros and scream about at high speed – the bombers were designed to put up with the odd bit of evasive ‘aeros’.”

Indeed they were. When absolutely neccessary. Hence bollockings for beating up airfields, or for stressing wings / fuselages / engines. I have in front of me, right now, on my desk, open, the second of two groundcrew diaries (Flight Sergeants in chrage of Flights on an operational Fighter Squadron). How many times do you think I have read the words write – off, or ‘beyond unit repair’ in the last couple of days? Mainplane write – off, airscrew write off, etc etc. Did Spits scream along taps out all the time? No.

And, they were built for a limited lifespan – months, rather than years. We are asking decades, or ‘forever’ from those airframes we see at Duxford (and other places) each time a displays on. Stick a Tornado or something through that aero if you must – after all, the RAF have the time and money to train pilots / teams together to a greater extent than a private individual, and can replace whatever bits they need to.

Scream about at high speed – yes. For a while.

RE: Display Routines-Fast and Low or Lots of Aeros?

“Was the mention of Cobber Kain coincidental??”

The mention of Cobber Kain was intentional. To underline a point – which you have pointed out (ie that he was doing aeros). (I guess the alcohol kinda dilutes the impact of the statement)

RE: Display Routines-Fast and Low or Lots of Aeros?

“P38 – cause not positively determined
Kingcobra – ditto
Mosquito – engine burp, wrong time (barrel roll), would have been less dramatic if not during aero’s.”

I’m not sure that any of those statements is true.The P38 was doing a series of rolls at low level,the Kingcobra was doing a low level loop and if the Mozzie hadn’t been doing aeros the engine ‘burp’ wouldn’t have happenned at all (negative G on the inside engine during a wing-over cut the fuel supply to the mis-adjusted carb.)
The point to all three of the above cases is that they all occurred while low level manouvres were being attempted.Both the Kingcobra and the Mozzie were very nearly able to recover,but JUST didn’t have enough hieght to do so.The Mozzie recovered from it’s initial spin,but then spun again because the pilot was forced to attempt a sharp pull up to avoid hitting trees.The Kingcobra hit the ground at an almost level attitude,I think it may even have hit trees or buildings first.These things make me think that we need just a bit more hieght for aerobatics please!
As for the skill and competence of the Brietling Fighters guys,I don’t doubt it for a second,but the pilots of the P38,Mozzie etc were also pretty damn good pilots.Even the greatest pilots are only human,and it’s only a matter of time before a mistake occurs.Now,to my mind,it would be far better for that mistake to be made at a greater hieght than a lower one.Better to misjudge a loop from 2,000ft and pull out just in time than to misjudge it from 1,000ft and hit the ground.

“Cobber Kain was pretty good at loops and rolls once,I wonder what he would make of it all.”

Was the mention of Cobber Kain coicidental??He was killed just after the Battle of France whilst attempting a low level roll.He’d been posted to a training squadron so the chaps from the squadron he was leaving threw an absolute blinder of a party for him the night before he was due to leave.It’s thought that he still had a heck of alot of alcohol in his system next morning when he took off for his new posting.He tried to perform a barrel roll as a farewell gesture and went straight into the ground.It’s a prime example of how handy hieght can be when you make a mistake!

RE: Display Routines-Fast and Low or Lots of Aeros?

I don’t think anyone here is calling for the hangar for these (except maybe sticking a Lanc on a pole like an ice – lolly). My feeling hasn’t changed. I want to see them fly. I want to see them fast and low, I want to see them showing their lines etc too in slow passes, and I want to hear them. An aeroplane is something that flies – not something that sits on the ground (wheelie – bins do that) – they are ex – aeroplanes.

But I don’t need to see the Breitling fighter team (who I get a buzz out of watching, feel amazed at, and really enjoy) doing close formation aerobatics. It isn’t about the risk for me, it’s about more than that. A Spitfire is not an Extra 300. A herd of Mustangs is not the Red Arrows. Ok, so we have world class pilots – really excellent pilots and teams who have only been entrusted to fly these birds because of their skills – who can do these stunts (which is what they are, after all) with less chance of f – ing up than the rest of us would have, and half these airframes, like already stated, are virtually new anyway through the amount of parts replaced. No. It’s about what we would prefer to see. And I want to see something roaring along fast and low, in pairs or more, making a shitload of noise, making my neckhairs bristle, my heart pound (AND IT DOES, I SWEAR TO GOD!). I find aerobatics unneccasary – is a Spit not exciting unless it does a barrel roll? Is a Kittyhawk not impressive unless it can loop – the – loop? I can appreciate the Red Arrows, but can’t be bothered to watch them unless they are in front of my eyes. I’m sorry, I want the sight and sound of a fighter flying like a fighter, not doing the equivalent of a circus elephant in a bloody tutu doing ballet to impress. Let me see something wonderful as it is, and should be – without turning it into a freak-show.

And if some get bent, then that’s how it is, and has to be. But there is more chance of a pilot walking away if he isn’t inverted at 6 feet above a concrete runway, and less chance of him hitting the dirt anyway. Cobber Kain was pretty good at loops and rolls once. I wonder what he would think of it all.

RE: Display Routines-Fast and Low or Lots of Aeros?

“Just think what we are all missing…

P38
Kingcobra
Mosquito

They would make a smashing flypast on their own.”

I think that about sums the whole subject up.

RE: Display Routines-Fast and Low or Lots of Aeros?

I like to see aircraft flown in context.

I enjoy watching the BBMF because they are a tribute and because I know they will get home safely. I also like them because I like Lancs, Spits and Hurris.

Aeros are okay as long as they are flown with a good margin for error and safety. The Cobra at Biggin came down directly in front of me albeit 500yards away. I watched with a little fear the Hurricane at ledgends who performed slow loops at the M11 end of the runway. Seemed to me to be almost directly over head (my head). If your going to do aeros please do them AWAY from the crowd.

Personally I like aircraft flown in context. Spitfire scramble then Vic formation. Line astern with a weaver. Carrier takeoffs and landings for the Naval types. B17’s and little friends. Bristol Fighter and LVG dog fight over the trenches. Lysander dropping off spies. Swordfish bombing the Bismark. Grumman avenger torpedo attack. P51 ground attack, jumpers for gaolposts etc, etc.

I don’t mind if aeros are not included or if aircraft are flown sedately. Just think what we are all missing…

P38
Kingcobra
Mosquito

They would make a smashing flypast on their own.

RE: Display Routines-Fast and Low or Lots of Aeros?

I’m afraid theres more to calculating the risks of close formation flying than the distance between individual airframes.

Credit must be given where credit is due…..The pilots are perhaps some of the best in this country. The trio(breitling) of aircraft i saw at the first duxford last year, and at yeovilton last year were, in my humble opinion flown in the most professional way I could possibly imagine. They were incredible!

Charlie Browns Spit display at yeovilton was also one of the few displays I look at and actually say verbally……’thats good’ with ADDED nod of head! (I have to say that the Tucano display at last years yeovilton was also excellent from ALL aspects…but thats aside the main point!) When these aircraft were originally made….they were more or less falling over them (ok ok within reason) and the operating conditions required of them were extremely harsh…so the majority of these warbird aircraft are not namby pamby little things…..or at least werent in squadron service….even if each did have their own little foibles.

I think you’ll find many warbirds are g limited anyway. The skill and profesionalism of pilots who fly the great majority of these aircraft would never regularly allow them to exceed the limits set (hell i used to fly a bulldog that was g limited through fatigue…and thats on a 20 yr old airframe!).

They’d prob get the sack too……

all of the main aerobatic manouveres need not be carried out above 3 g’s..it just takes a bit longer, and you have to watch the speed a little bit more…..

I often think that aircraft flown from one end of the crowd line to another, more or less straight and level dont do much for the people who JUST go for the day out…for us rivet counters its enough just to see it fly. Mainly because the majority understand that we are quite priveliged to see it in the air.

i’m all for vigourousness……and in fact i really rather enjoy the yak 52 displays when i see them…..and the extra 300’s…..I think they are great….however much they may sound like lawnmowers and tractors… I never was one for flying straight and level!!

however if its rare and you just know thats the only one…then you must always play safe.

The RAF is guidelines oriented like no other force…and canted towards eeking out as much as possible from one source..or at least it is nowadays!! tighter than a camels wotsit in a snow storm now.

my solution? more like the breitling!!!!!!!!

and i am going to take a very large liberty in posting a couple of my shots….sorry!

Attachments:

RE: Display Routines-Fast and Low or Lots of Aeros?

Interesting direction for this thread.

Should make it clear, I am no pilot. But surely, in terms of pure risk management, a close fomation of warbirds performing full aerobatic routines has to be a higher risk than each warbird performing solo aerobatic routines. This, in turn, would be more risky than each warbird flying straight and level along the crowd line.

And yes, before someone makes the obvious point, zero risk would not be to fly at all. The balance must be made between, on one hand, the thrill of aerobatics (and formation) flying, not to mention the right of the owners/pilots to do this: compared to the risk both to themselves, spectators, and least importantly the airframes.

I am sure these argumants have been going on almost since airshows began. My own thoughts are boringly middle of the road. Now and again, I see airshows where undoughtedly talended and experienced pilots flying wonderful, well maintained and rare warbirds seem to want to do that little bit extra and cross the line between risk and crowd enjoyment.Lets face it, how many letters of compaint would Duxford receive if they did not include formation warbird aerobitics in the show. And how many punters (including ourselves) would not decide to attend?

RE: Display Routines-Fast and Low or Lots of Aeros?

Sorry, didn’t mean to cause offence to qualified ‘drivers’ everywhere.
I very much enjoy what you do, and thank you very much for it.

My point was that because everyone makes mistakes (that’s why they put rubbers on the end of pencils) it would be much safer for all if aerobatic routines did not form part of a high performance warbird aircraft display. Well planned and practiced (and impressive to watch) it may be, but the margin for error must be so tiny that any mistake creates an extremely dangerous situation for pilot, aircraft, and audience.

Leave the loops and rolls to the Pitts and Extra 300s and the formation loops to the Red Arrows.
Your Spitfire, Hurricane, Mustang, Bearcat etc would be better displayed the right way up and well placed for the crowd to see.

RE: Display Routines-Fast and Low or Lots of Aeros?

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 17-01-03 AT 00:52 AM (GMT)]BULL**IT and CODSWALLOP

alexis all aircraft are for flying. Personally to me if all the museum pieces could fly then i would like to see them up there. While realising we have to preserve examples in museums I would rather see anything fly than having it sit static.

I saw the BBMF Lanc for the first time this year and it was one of thee most gracefull aircraft I have ever seen but nothing bets the sound of those four engines beating up a tune across the sky in front of you. Apart from maybe four Hercules engines in a Halibag eh Lancman. LOL

What it is to dream I suppose.

BBMF do the pilots of the war proud they show off the aircraft to show their skills and the aircrafts beauty. I would not see anyone berate the BBMF crew as they also do us proud.

Regards Merlin

IN REPLY TO POST NUMBER 10

RE: Display Routines-Fast and Low or Lots of Aeros?

That’s ‘above’ as in post No.10!

RE: Display Routines-Fast and Low or Lots of Aeros?

What did I say? What did I say? 🙂