Wouldn’t a fire/oil leak of that scale caused an engine shut down and feathering of the prop? Look like it’s still turning to me.

I vote shadow ……

Wasn’t the VC10 K fleet, and the associated resurrection of 101 Sqn the Victor’s medium/long term replacement? Ok, the ’10s been pushing it for the past few years (particularly with the disposal of the K2), but to say the need’s been neglected for 30 years, when the VC10 tanker fleet’s only been around for 26 years (and been very capable), is a bit much.:)

(and even the “smaller” fuel capacity VC10s, the C1K, K2 and K4, on a good day can give away the something close to the entire fuel capacity of one Victor!)

They also have a flight refuelling capabillity with the 216 Sqn Tristars

Possibly an inventory code ? Equipment & furniture was generally issued to an inventory and the holder was responsible for it – hence the items would be marked with that code.

I was wondering if anyone with expirence in crash investigation could look at this picture. Its from a light aircraft high energy crash.

The prop is a Hartzell Constant Speed (2 blade).

To my untrained eye, it looks like the prop was NOT turning at the time of impact. Would anyone with some expirence in the field care to give an interpretation?

Sorry its not actually historical….but I like this forum and know there always is a high quality to the answers.

During my days as CSE ( Oxford ) I saw quite a few damaged prop’s of this type. generally, if the prop was turning at the time of impact, both blades scrolled around backwards at the tips. I would be inclined to say that if this had been turning at the moment of impact there would have been substantially more damage to the blade, most probably with the tips missing. The presence of large rocks would also suggest more damage would have been caused had it been turning.
From this picture, it’s really only possible to say that this blade was probably not turning when it hit the ground.

LH seat in a Westland Wessex HU5 at RAF Shawbury circa 1980.

#3 looks like the nozzle guide vanes on a gas turbine engine.

But on the other hand was the VC10 or Comet fitted with escape systems? exmpa

The VC10 K2 & K3 tanker variants were fitted with an extending escape chute utilising the forward port door – only five parachutes were to be carried and had to be donned prior to diving ‘down the hatch’. If PAX were carried, the chutes were stowed in the freight bay! The general consensus amongst the crews was that without it ( if you got through the door ! ) you would take an LP2 reading on the way and with it you had a 50/50 chance of hitting the port wing.

The system was eventually abandoned, thankfully having never been tested for real. In flight, the chute conveniently served as a holder for a bin liner for waste food etc 😀

Carterton – Brize Norton married quarters

Beverley Crescent
Brittania Close
Anson Avenue
Devon Place
Andover Lane
Hastings Drive
Argosy Road
York Road