Mosquito really did have a strange stall

[humble]

Originally posted by Karnak
Humble,

I suggest you read the definition of your handle.

The engine problem happened during the climb.

I'm not trying to be callous and while its certainly possible that engine problems suddenly evolved on the climb its unlikely. I went thru this before with viking on a 109 crash in spain where he insisted it was an equipment issue when in fact it was entirely pilot error as noted on both the official accident report and the comments from the other pilots on hand.

While equipment issues are often listed as possible contributing factors the vast majority of NTSB final reports site pilot error as the primary cause. Looking at the clip thats my thought here as well.

I'd love to look at the report if you have the link....

[Grisbeau]

I believe this is the official report.

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_501355.pdf

[humble]

Originally posted by Grisbeau
I believe this is the official report.

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_501355.pdf

Thanks, very interesting....

So the left carb cut out either do to the improper maintenance or that in combination with a slightly neg G state at the apex of the wingover....

I still go back to the fact that the poor guy had only 72 hours over a number of years in a difficult plane and was flying a routine with no real margin for error in the event of a mishap. Of his 10,000 hrs only 529 were in light planes (no indication of other twin prop or warbird experience). In my mind the guy wasnt qualified to fly the plane in a performance display...

[AquaShrimp]

When the Mosquito first came out, one of the things praised about it was its ability to fly and make turns on one engine.

On another video recording, a puff of smoke, with an accompanying'bang' was apparent when the
nose of the aircraft was pointingat the ground following the initial loss of control. It is believedthat
this puff of smoke came from the left engine although theevidence was not conclusive. This event
may have been due torapid throttle (ie boost lever) closure by the pilot as part ofthe recovery
procedure, 'bangs' or 'crackles' being a characteristicengine response to such action. It is noteworthy
that no smokewas visible from the left engine at the time of the observed propellerRPM reduction
prior to the loss of control. This suggested thatthe cause of the propeller RPM reduction wasnot due
to an excessively rich mixture.

I think the pilot knew what he was doing.  He seemed to recognize the problem immediately, due to his throttling back to recover.

[Viking]

Originally posted by humble
I went thru this before with viking on a 109 crash in spain where he insisted it was an equipment issue when in fact it was entirely pilot error as noted on both the official accident report and the comments from the other pilots on hand.

Ah, so now it was "entirely pilot error". I thought you were arguing that it was the dangerous 109 handling that killed him. I see you're still doing an excellent job of making an arse of yourself.

[humble]

Just trying to keep up with you, but thats impossible.

And yes the 109 killed him, its easily one of the most treacherous planes ever built. He just got complacent in a bird you cant ever trust....

[humble]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
When the Mosquito first came out, one of the things praised about it was its ability to fly and make turns on one engine.

 

I think the pilot knew what he was doing.  He seemed to recognize the problem immediately, due to his throttling back to recover.

Nobody with 72 hours in type and only 4.5 in the current year with only 529 total hours in a light plane (remember he had 10 yrs before he got his ATP rating) has any business executing a performance routine with a 100 ft hard deck...end of story.

He died becuase he blew the initial recovery, which would not be unexpected given his total time, time in type and current time. He should have had a minimum of 10 hrs a month current time in type or in a suitable alternative practicing unusual attitude recovery and mechanical failure recovery procedures. He died because he had to think and then do in an enviornment where a mistake would kill him...and it did.

If you look at the NTSB accident reports you'd be suprised how many ATP pilots die in single engine mishaps every year...especially acrobatic ones. 20,000 hrs in a jet doesnt make you qualified for 2 hours of hammerheads in your pitts a month.

The guy had zero business in that plane...in those conditions. Simply playing russian rulette with a different kind of bullet.

[Viking]

Originally posted by humble
And yes the 109 killed him...

So then it was "an equipment issue" after all ... or was it "entirely pilot error"? You never could make up your mind; always having one more moronic opinion to offer.

[Sombra]

I think in these kind of exhibitions some pilots tend to overestimate the capabilities of their planes. E.g.


Close call after a loop.

Is it really worth it, aerobatics with warbirds? To please for a few seconds a handful of people, deprive the rest of humanity of the irreplaceable machine, for the rest of time?

Was this roll worth it?
P-38 crash Duxford 1996

Good thing aerobatics are not possible with HMS Victory, otherwise for sure you couldn't visit it now.

[Wes14]

 Now if fights only got that low in AH!

[Pooh21]

Originally posted by Wes14
 Now if fights only got that low in AH!

Ive gotten a couple kills from ground bursts of cannons from guys who were doing that after a loop.

[skaltura]

Why all this propaganda about "difficult, almost dangerous to fly" old aircraft? E.g. if the flying hours before the first combat of many Finnish aces are looked upon, one can note that quite often there weren´t too many of them. Yet they managed to fly these aircraft and even to fight in them, with success.

Another point is that should warbirds be subject to aerobatics. Yes, they should. IMHO either they should be subjected to what the original manual allows or not flown at all. As for safety of them: practice how to handle emergencies. I think John F. Forsyth describes well how to do it in his book "Hell Divers". He took his aircraft to a safe altitude and then did every imaginable thing with it learning how to deal with emergencies. He confesses that this voluntary practice saved his life when in true need.

I have been a couple of times to two aviation museums. Not too interesting as static displays are just that.

[humble]

most pilots had 300 or so total hours or more before entering combat...

Average life expectancy of a new pilot in combat was usually measured in weeks. If you look at operational losses you'll find most units lost more pilots to operational accidents then actual combat.

The guy who went down in the mossie had a total of 4.5 hours during the year he died. No way he should have been flying a demonstration routine with a 100 ft hard deck along a compressed flight line that forced a steeper vertical then he was used to...simply a wreck that was waiting to happen and unfortunately did.

[Grendel]

Originally posted by humble
most pilots had 300 or so total hours or more before entering combat...

 

By whose standards? Certainly not "most pilots"  worldwide.
How many flight hours did Italian, German, Hungarian, French, Greek, South African, Chinese, British etc pilots have before entering combat on average? What one nation had as training standard, many others did not.

[humble]

Actually standards were pretty universal, as the war progressed other factors entered in but if you look at the 1940 standards all of them (that I've seen) were somewhat similiar. I know Japan and Italy had even higher training hour levels then the US or germany did.