True enough. The Hurricane had an engine issue and crash landed, AB910 whacked a Harvard, and the Spit hit the stumps in the 1960’s.
They also had a hurricane ground loop at Duxford which required a new prop at least and other related repair works.
They also had two other ‘incidents’ in the Lanc that were fortunately averted.
One was at North Weald where it seemed to be headed straight for Sally B that was parked, and a second at Mildenhall where the undercarriage had to be inspected prior to any further flying following a very heavy side load as she skewed off the runway and onto the grass. It sat where it stopped for some time.
Not too long ago she also suffered an engine failure abroad, but as she is funded by the taxpayer along with the whole taxpayer funded logistics organisation behind it, the engine problem was solved fairly quickly, but I don’t remember any taxpayer funded ‘comments’ being sounded at any of these incurred costs?
I consider we are fortunate that we have these aircraft funded in such a way, but I feel it’s a shame that the RNHF are not able to secure the same funding means as the RAF BBMF and the sizeable team they have employed in it, which seems a little unfair to me?
With this in mind, it also then seems to me that it’s then ok to ‘question’ the RNHF, but not the sacrosanct BBMF, which is also unfair.
I’m very glad that the pilot managed to get down safely with what appears to be a deteriorating situation. Another recent example of good airmanship.
Hopefully the aircraft will be repaired as soon as they can.
All credit to RNHF for sticking with it.
I agree.
Sign In
Brian