Old Black and White picture of Vulcan breaking apart

Airshow accident atSyerston.
There is a full explanation via Google, but apparently frontwing spar buckling during a fast low level pass leading to loss of wing skin panels.

RAF Syerston

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGOY1jZGNHU

The video is currently unavailable

Definately Syerston, I was there.
The Vulcan was a test bed from Hucknall flying with Rolls-Royce Conway engines and was I believe simulating airline service prior to entry of the Conway in BOAC 707s.
The fast run for the airshow crowd was with the vulcan in a rolled to starboard attitude presumably to show off the delta.
I recall the upper skin rippling proir to failure.

As for airshows at Newton, there certainly were some in the 50s. I saw an F86 Sabre break the sound barrier there at one display.

This accident happened during an airshow at RAF Syerston.
The vulcan was flying as a tetbed for Rolls-Royce Conway engines.
A the time I was apprenticed to Rolls at Derby.
I believe that the vulcan was used to simulate airline service prior to the introduction of Conways in the boeing 707 for BOAC.
The Vulcan was making a low fast pass over the airfield near the end of the show. It was flying starbordwing down presumably to show the planform of the delta whilst not turning.
I saw the upper skin of the wing ripple and then break awy in pieces leading to the loss of the entire wing.
A fire started immediately at tyhe engine bay and I rememmber the nose rearing up before the aircraft fell to the ground. Presumably the pilot was trying to counter the roll with up port airleron.

Thanks, spitfireman. There are two arguments here.

Do Heritage-Images own the copyright? I very much doubt it. If the photo is genuine and not constructed, they would have to show they purchased this right from the original photographer or their heirs. Judging from the flight line, it was some RAF person or airfield worker. In those days, little value was placed on this sort of thing. Incidentally there are much better photos of this tragedy.

And then the disease of intellectual property rights which is destroying the free interchange of knowledge. Why should I be lauded for freely publishing images of my work when my intention was primarily to attract constructive criticism? Without which I am lost.

Mike

Thanks, spitfireman. There are two arguments here.

Do Heritage-Images own the copyright? I very much doubt it. If the photo is genuine and not constructed, they would have to show they purchased this right from the original photographer or their heirs. Judging from the flight line, it was some RAF person or airfield worker. In those days, little value was placed on this sort of thing. Incidentally there are much better photos of this tragedy.

And then the disease of intellectual property rights which is destroying the free interchange of knowledge. Why should I be lauded for freely publishing images of my work when my intention was primarily to attract constructive criticism? Without which I am lost.

Mike

Its a company that sells images, I guess they are protecting their stock.

http://www.heritage-images.com/Preview/PreviewPage.aspx?id=2496636&pricing=true&licenseType=RM

Its a company that sells images, I guess they are protecting their stock.

http://www.heritage-images.com/Preview/PreviewPage.aspx?id=2496636&pricing=true&licenseType=RM

Could I ask why there is such a grotesque copyright symbol overlaying the Vulcan image?

If the image is real and not constructed, I very much doubt if such a copyright is owned by whoever published the image.

This business of intellectual property rights has gone well over the top. Bluntly it disgusts me.

Mike

Could I ask why there is such a grotesque copyright symbol overlaying the Vulcan image?

If the image is real and not constructed, I very much doubt if such a copyright is owned by whoever published the image.

This business of intellectual property rights has gone well over the top. Bluntly it disgusts me.

Mike

Absolutely without a doubt, this crash happened at RAF Syerston.
I can’t say that I’ve heard of a Vulcan crash at RAF Newton (apologies if not the case), especially such a dramatic and public one as this one sadly was.

Vulcan break up at the Air Show…

My memory is either playing tricks with me but my recollection is that this was at RAF Newton, not RAF Syerston just 10 miles or so north of Newton.

Not unless of course there have been “two” Vulcan break-ups in the same area.

I was an RAF Apprentice and because my home was in Nottingham, I was picked out to go there with two other Brats and man the recruiting stand “in uniform”, of course, the prize being most of the weekend at home… because we weren’t allowed out much at Halton, you see….it was a bit of a prison…

Anyway it is vivid in my mind as the Vulcan was “I recall” a Test Bed aircraft from Hucknall and he was doing a high speed run and I recall it as being from North East to South West, so how it could end up at Syerston I don’t know.

I was on a break from the recruiting stand and strolled out to where the crowd were just in time to hear the announcemnt and see the Vulcan turning to line up for the run. It straightened out and I watched as the sheetmetal started to fly off the starboard wing leading edge and then it was… “all over red rover”. Terrible thing to witness.

It was a bright sunny day I recall and what sticks to me in my mind that it was Newton and not Syerston is that there was a Hawker Tempest at the airshow and it was parked on the grass. I believe it was the last the RAF had. Newton didn’t have a lot of hardstanding in front of the hangars and Newton didn’t have runways, it was grass airfield reinforced in part by PSP..

I waited as long as I could to get a glimpse of this beauty while it started up and then I wanted to see the take-off but it didn’t happen. On start-up the N. Sabre emitted a big long curling flame which lasted for a few seconds and this flame melted and distorted the left hand side of the canopy so it was grounded.

I am familiar with the layout of both Newton and Syerston (both WWII fields) having been there many times to both. Was it Newton or was it Syerston ? I believe it was Newton. I see “the book” says Syerston.

RPM…

[QUOTE=baloffski;1834406]There were a few Tornado jets which were fitted with Structural Usage Monitoring System which was essentially a big bunch of strain gauges all over the wings and fin which fed data into a cassette tape changed after every landing.

Interestingly enough, a similar system was fited to a Nimrod MR.2. It was called NOFLMP (Nimrod operational flight loading monitoring pogramme). This was long before the tragic Afganistan loss, ie. mid to late 1980’s. The recorder was located in place of one of the Sonobuoy racks.

Regards, Cabbage

Thanks for all the replies, makes for a very interesting and thought provoking thread.

were the engines upgraded before the crash to more powerful ones? or am i getting mixed up with th DH11O that infamously broke up??.

VX770 was employed as an engine test-bed by Rolls Royce at the time of the accident, it originally flew with four RR RA.3 Avons of 6,500Ib, these were considered a stop-gap to get the 698s flying. These were then changed to AS Sa.6 Sapphires of 7,500Ib, before gaining the 16,500Ib RR Co.10 Conways in August 1957.

Baloffski, Thunderbird, and Vega seem bang on as to the cause, being structural break-up of the wing following leading edge failure.
Many sources state that VX770 had been put through manoeuvres which were too much for the aircraft and which contributed to the failure, but it should be remembered that the prototypes were not as strong as the production aircraft. When the 698s were under construction in the early 1950s correct stressing for high speed jet aircraft was little understood by the industry,manufacturers, and to a degree by the research bodies, calculations often proving to be under done, unfortunately this was often found out through investigation after an accident.

Pistonrob draws an interesting parallel with the 1952 DH.110 crash, and the similarities were remarkable.
John Derry had been flying spirited (but entirely well thought out and safe) manouvres in the first prototype when the stb’d leading edge buckled and opened up causing catastrophic failure of the wing structures. Its wings were subsequently found to have only possessed 64% of their calculated designed strength, de Havilland accepting responsibility.

Very dangerous times, with very brave test and service crews whos jobs seem tragically overlooked when compared to wartime careers.

There were a few Tornado jets which were fitted with Structural Usage Monitoring System which was essentially a big bunch of strain gauges all over the wings and fin which fed data into a cassette tape changed after every landing.

The training film for this system opened with the footage of the Vulcan break up which led to a section on the probable cause, which if memory serves, was due to a large section of the leading edge failing peeling back and causing catastrophic structural failure of the wing.

Obviously the accident investigation techniques were not as advanced in those days; but the implication was that a lot of high speed runs and ‘sporty’ displays of the aircraft had resulted in minute fatigue cracks in the leading edges which had joined up and essentially uinzipped a rivet line. This was the start in a sequence of events which resulted in the horrific crash.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the bare metal finish applied to high performance jets was to allow easier inspection of rivet lines etc. and also fitting of fatigue meters and the fatigue indexing process were all introduced following this accident.

The primary cause of the accident was a structural failure of the starboard main plane. This is confirmed by inspection of the wreckage, cine films and photographs taken at the time of the accident together with statements by A.I.B. and the Chief Designer of A.V. Roe Ltd. Although the strip examination has not been made preliminary evidence indicates that there was no failure of the engines.

from http://www.freewebs.com/keithstevenson/vulcancrash.htm

were the engines upgraded before the crash to more powerful ones? or am i getting mixed up with th DH11O that infamously broke up??.

I was there on that day. Very sad as I used to see 770 on an almost daily basis along with it’s stablemates such as the Tyne Ambassador and Lincoln, as my parents house was under the extended approach to Hucknall. I also saw the Vulcan roll walking home from school at lunchtime when we lived near Manchester. I spent many years working on them at Coningsby and Cottesmore.
John

The primary cause of the accident was a structural failure of the starboard main plane. This is confirmed by inspection of the wreckage, cine films and photographs taken at the time of the accident together with statements by A.I.B. and the Chief Designer of A.V. Roe Ltd. Although the strip examination has not been made preliminary evidence indicates that there was no failure of the engines.

from http://www.freewebs.com/keithstevenson/vulcancrash.htm

No …..not U/C testing or ignition of fuel vapour build up, but a structural failure of the wing leading edge due to exceedance of manouvering restrictions plus maybe some damage from some previous overstressed flying. This aircraft was a prototype and its wing was far from the production standard and was very limited in what could be flown.

Best detailed account of this incident I’ve seen is in former Vulcan test pilot Tony Blackman book “Vulcan test pilot” isbn978-1-906502-30-0 pages 151-154

The Cranfield Victor was tailplane flutter.