Spitfire stops play – just not cricket!

Gotta be done with real stumps and a real Spitfire, or some smarta*se here will find a reason to disbelieve!

Should have had a word with Rob Davies* a few weeks ago before he parked that one in Kent…

Adrian

*Davis?

It ought to be a simple test to model. The shape and thickness of the wing leading edge is well known. Recreate a front box with a couple of feet of alloy. Add it to a pendulum- it should be straightforward (to someone, but not me- I will ask the boy when he gets back from his lectures) to calculate the length of swing required to produce a velocity at the bottom of the swing around about 75mph, and put a stump there. Post images of the outcome.

Why test a model,just smack some stumps against a real Spitfire then run like hell and wait for someone to post the photos of the damage on here 🙂

I’ve been busy designing new stumps; hinged at the bottom. I won’t be stumped for an answer in future.

I still have to complete Les Munro’s Lancaster, never mind put it in a diorama… I’d already started it when he signed the box, so that gives you an idea of how long it’s been so far (though I can claim moving house as an excuse).

Adrian

Just need a Heller Spitfire XVI or Revell if you want something a bit larger (other kits are available)

For added amusement, you could convert a Mk.IX to a low-back XVI fairly easily:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242040[/ATTACH]

Italeri’s 1/48th job is by far the nicest that I’ve made in the scale.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242041[/ATTACH]

It ought to be a simple test to model. The shape and thickness of the wing leading edge is well known. Recreate a front box with a couple of feet of alloy. Add it to a pendulum- it should be straightforward (to someone, but not me- I will ask the boy when he gets back from his lectures) to calculate the length of swing required to produce a velocity at the bottom of the swing around about 75mph, and put a stump there. Post images of the outcome.

Oh dear…

I have just thought “Someone ought to build a diorama”.

I haven’t even started the one I want to do…

Adrian

Just need a Heller Spitfire XVI or Revell if you want something a bit larger (other kits are available)

Oh dear…

I have just thought “Someone ought to build a diorama”.

I haven’t even started the one I want to do…

Adrian

…truth is often stranger than fiction…

…who would’ve thought a Space Shuttle could be catastrophically bought down by a piece of dislodged foam?

Hi BD 1954. Welcome to the Forum !

Great to have another first-hand witness. Bringing history to life, and all that……

I was there that day as a 5 year old. My Dad played for The Times. They all stopped playing and ran over to Oxos to see what had happened. He took home a piece of the broken propellor and we kept it for many years. The Times Sports Club was eventually sold when Rupert Murdoch took over and Oxo became Millwall FCs training ground. I missed the crash as I was in the toilet at the time. When I came out everyone had vanished! The club steward eventually saw me on my own and told me what had happened so I went off to join everyone else. As you can imagine it was very exciting for a young boy!

Are you mad ? I’m certainly not going to risk a set of brand new stumps hardly yet run in (pun intended)

Best riposte yet 😀

Adrian

As someone has commented, they – the stumps, would have to be set in concrete to provide the kind of resistance required and if they were, then the stumps, in my opinion, are more likely to snap somewhere near their base inflicting nothing worse than the removal of some paint from the leading edge.

It would not be the resistance of the stumps in the ground that caused the damage…

…it would be the inertia of the stumps as they accelerated from zero to whatever speed the Spitfire was doing.

This also explains why the stumps would tend to break in the middle at the point where the wing hit them.

(My apologies for posting after only reading a few posts of this thread.)

Personally I find that fact that a Spitfire crash-lands on a cricket pitch, hits the stumps, and ends up with dents in its wing far easier to believe than any other explanation, all of which seem to involve a highly unlikely amount of unwitnessed effort on the part of persons unknown to create a story that goes unnoticed for half a century before it takes off online. I’m pretty sure you can see them in the photo linked on the first page, they’re just further down the wing than you might think.

Anyway, it’s an easy conundrum to solve – all we need to do is have a word with someone at Duxford who can be persuaded to belly land their Spitfire into a set of stumps, and see what the wing looks like afterwards. Simples! No obvious flaws in that plan.

Incidentally, I may not agree with you, John Green, but I couldn’t fault your riposte.

Adrian

Are you mad ? I’m certainly not going to risk a set of brand new stumps hardly yet run in (pun intended)

Thank you Old Stager, I know a few people who will appreciate that video!

Adrian

I am surprised that, after all this time, no one has mentioned the well known fact that a musket can fire a candle through an oak door.

The muzzle velocity of a musket will be somewhat higher than a Spitfire’s landing speed, but a candle is a good deal softer than an ash stump and might even be expoected to melt under the heat of the impact.

A Spitfire leading edge is very strong, but if you hit metal it will bend, and if it bends far enough it will not spring back.

YouTube has something on this, as you might expect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orO3PxLPiKU

Personally I find that fact that a Spitfire crash-lands on a cricket pitch, hits the stumps, and ends up with dents in its wing far easier to believe than any other explanation, all of which seem to involve a highly unlikely amount of unwitnessed effort on the part of persons unknown to create a story that goes unnoticed for half a century before it takes off online. I’m pretty sure you can see them in the photo linked on the first page, they’re just further down the wing than you might think.

Anyway, it’s an easy conundrum to solve – all we need to do is have a word with someone at Duxford who can be persuaded to belly land their Spitfire into a set of stumps, and see what the wing looks like afterwards. Simples! No obvious flaws in that plan.

Incidentally, I may not agree with you, John Green, but I couldn’t fault your riposte.

Adrian

I don’t understand all the hoo haa above. I know that if You drop a cricket wicket from a tall building and it reaches avoid speed on the way down, I don’t want my head or my car roof to be the first thing it hits. I think there’d be a decent dent!

Too right there; occasionally baffled and CONFUSED.

Here’s a story on the theme of this thread :

One day at Southampton (Eastleigh) I departed on two zero and was barely over the upwind threshold when there was a thump and a confused (confirmation for Mark12) blur of something white striking the leading edge of the left wing. My speed at that point would have been around 75kts.

I called a Pan, rejoined the circuit and landed. An examination of the wing showed a modest dent in the leading edge measuring about three inches by four. The dent was shallow and hardly measurable at the edges but, towards the center was about half an inch deep.

After a search, the corpse was found and seen to be a seagull. I don’t know what the average flying rat weighs – about a half a pound (8 ounces) or so ? Might have been a bit more. It is likely that we had a closing speed of about 100kts with a contribution of lateral resistance from both the aircraft and the bird bringing about the damage described.

I like the Spitfire/cricket stump story, it has the right ingredients. It is not impossible, especially if someone armed with a club hammer drove the stumps into quick setting concrete. But, likely ?

Clearly confused. 😉