During some research into the loss of an RAF Mustang locally, I have obtained a copy of the AIB report from the PRO and this has raised a number or questions that I thought some of the members of this forum could help to answer.
The aircraft was a Mustang IV (built as P-51K-5-NT) and crashed on a ferry flight in February 1945 after the pilot was thrown out! Witnesses on the ground saw the aircraft perform a shallow dive from approx. 1000ft, then climb and repeat the manoeuvre from approx. 800 feet. It then performed a complete roll to the left, steady momentarily and then begin a second roll to the left – at which point the pilot was seen to leave the aircraft, which then dived vertically into the ground.
The report concludes that it could not be ascertained if these manoeuvres were carried out intentionally or not and the only injuries mentioned were bruising to the eyelids and suffusion of the eyes (though his parachute failed to deploy effectively and he must have been severely injured by the fall, dying within minutes of being found). There seems to be some importance attached to these injuries and there was conjecture as to whether they were caused by the effects of negative G or a blow to the head.
One of the many issues in the report that puzzles me is why no mention of the canopy is made – If he had been ejected through the canopy – is this even possible? Surely that would have given him a pretty nasty blow to the head! Alternatively could the canopy have been open? Seems unlikely to me, as it was a cold damp day in February and he had an old injury that was susceptible to the cold – he was seen limping that morning due to this. Plus he had just flown from Scotland to Lancashire and may have even been on his way back, as his destination was shrouded in mist on his arrival, also he was sitting on the aircraft’s manuals and logbooks, which surely would have easily been caught in any slipstream from this? However I may be wrong – Would it perhaps have been normal practise to fly with the canopy open on this aircraft?
By: N.Wotherspoon - 4th December 2008 at 21:28
BTW what does it say about his mental state?
Apparently he strongly resented being put through the ATA pilot training program and felt that he should not be asked to fly single engined types due to his experience of flying heavy bombers.
By: Mondariz - 3rd December 2008 at 19:34
Yes you are absolutly right, those two cases seem very alike.
For every one fuel leak/open cockpit accident, there must have been 5-10 aircraft that didn’t crash. I mean pilots that survived the same situation, as its not a certain disaster scenario. Is this the case?
Was it something that was known to happen now and again?
The described maneuvers do not seem very spectacular (as you point out), could the pilot be an attempt to do something. Does it appear like some test of controls?
BTW what does it say about his mental state?
By: N.Wotherspoon - 3rd December 2008 at 18:39
Regarding the open cockpit. This could have been open due to a buildup of carbon monoxide, or some other ventilating problem (perhaps fuel vapor in the cockpit).
I have never heard about anyone being thrown through the canopy of a P-51. Although there are plenty of things i never heard about….:D
The problem with these old cases is that they remain speculation. If the investigation didn’t find any conclusive cause, then its much harder now after almost 64 years later.
Hi Mondariz
Yes you are quite right – proving anything now is unlikely, but I really am not happy with the report as it lays the blame on the pilot for carrying out unauthorised aerobatics and makes comments about his mental state. The manoeuvres made were hardly spectacular aerobatics and even the report concedes that there was really no one around to see them anyway. The more I looked at the details, the more it reminded me of another incident we investigated a couple of years ago – P-51B Mustang 43-6635 also lost on a routine ferry flight. The aircraft was newly assembled at Speke and was being flown to Warton for further modification, when it suffered a fuel or glycol leak – the pilot, Flight Officer Eugene Stanley Rybaczek, tried to put it down on a satellite landing ground at Knowsley Park. Witnesses saw vapour streaming from the obviously open cockpit and the aircraft made unexpected manoeuvres before it stalled and crashed on the threshold of the runway.
By: ian_ - 3rd December 2008 at 14:11
Sounds like an interesting one Nick! The pilot of the second prototype Whittle jet was thrown out through the canopy after the controls locked, but I’d imagine a p51 had thicker perspex? If he’d jettisonned the hood it would surely have made the report (unless it was souveniered at the time) A dig probably wont prove if it was open or closed and its a bit late for fabric forensics on any shards of perspex. Should be an interesting dig though, good luck with it.
By: Mondariz - 3rd December 2008 at 13:47
Regarding the open cockpit. This could have been open due to a buildup of carbon monoxide, or some other ventilating problem (perhaps fuel vapor in the cockpit).
I have never heard about anyone being thrown through the canopy of a P-51. Although there are plenty of things i never heard about….:D
The problem with these old cases is that they remain speculation. If the investigation didn’t find any conclusive cause, then its much harder now after almost 64 years later.
Sign In
December 3, 2008 at 1:34 pm