Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: AquaShrimp on December 26, 2007, 08:53:15 PM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag5ut3tP3ZM&feature=related
Check out the strange attitudes of this Mosquito before it crashed. I always thought it was a flaw in Aces High that the plane handled like it did. But apparently not.
-
There was an engine issue involved in that crash, FYI.
-
Yep, the plane does seem like the number 1 isn't producing as much power.
-
Very possibly the most tasteless post in AH history.
If you want, I'll email you the accident investigation report, but only on condition you edit your post to read "AquaShrimp is a handsomehunk."
-
Are you really upset over this post? Maybe you shouldn't be playing a game where we pretend to kill each other.
-
Scherf, that post isn't in bad taste at all. You are overreacting.
I don't think that stall looked strange at all considering he was almost inverted when he stalled it. The pilot recovered the plane after what looked like 1000-2000 feet. He just didn't have enough altitude to pull out of the dive.
-
It does seem like he recovered with about 500 ft to go.
However, while not a tastless post, it is a tasteless title. We don't know what conditions caused the stall, as certainly someone with enough stick time in the plane to be flying it in an airshow wouldn't enter a spin after only approx 1,000 ft of vert zoom.
-
:(
-
The only reason I posted this was because I thought it provided information about a controversal subject in Aces High, that being the strange stalling characteristics of a few twin engined planes.
-
Sadly warbird crashes arent that uncommon. Plenty of them on youtube alone. The reality is that more fighter pilots (on all sides) died in operational accidents then actual combat. This is seperate from training accidents. When the mustang 1st went into operational service with the RAF they had no 2 seat trainer, 2 of the first 5 pilots died on their orientation hop.
I read a book written by a 38 pilot in the MTO and he recounted his 1st solo flight in the 38 where he had to fly almost thru the crash of the plane infront of him as the poor guy burned to death just of the runway.
The simple reality is that these are very difficult planes to fly and current overall pilot quality is much lower in the sense that literally hundreds washed out for each front line fighter pilot, and many others perished early....so the survivors were exceptionally accomplished stick and throttle guys with razor sharp skills. As the Bob Hoovers of the world retired very few pilots actually meet that standard and more and more often they simply push the envelope further then their ability permits.
If in fact there was an engine problem then the poor guy deserved what he got if he felt it and kept on going. However it looks like he simply screwed the pooch to me...
-
Humble,
I suggest you read the definition of your handle.
The engine problem happened during the climb.
-
Very possibly the most tasteless post in AH history.
I disagree. Naturally, we are saddened by what happened, but posting the video is clearly justified by its content.
-
Engine problem or not it is notable how easily the plane starts to slide sideways nearly entering a flat spin.
The Mossie does not have too much side surface to counter slip and the smallness of rudder does not help either.
It is also notable that despite those factors the pilot is able to get it under control. Slightly more alt and he probably would have made it.
After watching a few of these WW2 warbird accidents it seems that quite a few happen in pull outs when they suddenly seem to run out of altitude. Obviously the pilots seem to miscalculate how much the a/c actually slips through the turn.
-C+
-
The AH mossie certainly is that much of a handful with one engine stopped.
-
Engine problem or not it is notable how easily the plane starts to slide sideways nearly entering a flat spin.
The Mossie does not have too much side surface to counter slip and the smallness of rudder does not help either.
It is also notable that despite those factors the pilot is able to get it under control. Slightly more alt and he probably would have made it.
Those were my thoughts as well.
While an engine trouble might effect a plane into entering a flat spin more easily than under normal conditions, especially during such a dangerous phase of flight as being at the apex of a loop, watching the mossie literally "slide sideways into an uncontrollable state so easily", as Charge puts it, seems to suggest the "weird" stalls in 110s or Mossies may not be so 'weird' after all.
If an engine problem occured during the climb, the loss of power makes it impossible for the pilot to complete the loop, and therefore, puts the plane into a state of tail-sliding downwards. As a matter of fact such things happen quite frequently in some planes in AH2, an example being the Ki-84 and the Ta152.
((Note: Although many of the better pilots claim such things do not happen with these planes, they seem to forget just how easily us more mediocre pilots can push our planes into troublesome situations. The odds are, the veteran pilots don't notice problems because they avoid going into such situations in the first place, whereas we medicre guys, do quite often push the plane in the 'wrong manner', and therefore, demonstrate that in such circumstances indeed, the described dangerous flat spin does happen.
Countless times, out of desparation. I've pushed Ki84s or Ta152 into a vertical, at which apex, I quite frequently lose control as normal airflow is lost, and the plane enters a tail-slide, which quickly evolves into a flat spin that is very difficult to pull out from.))
Quoting the words of bozon, "once normal airflow is lost, anything can happen". If, a big IF, the above recorded incident was not an isolated one, but rather a rare footage of the tendency for planes with similar profiles as Mosquitos to fall into similar spins under extremely dangerous conditions, then it somehow makes sense.
Come to think of it, the Ta152, P-38, Mosquito, and 110s, Spitfires and Ki84s - the planes in AH2 known to enter dangerous flat spins during harsh maneuvering - all have a similar profile IMO.
* The wing area is relatively large for the size of the fuselage
* The fuselage is often very slim or slender, when compared to the overal size or length of the wings
(elongated fuselage in the case of the Ta152, very slim and slender in the case of the 110, Mossy, and the P-38. The Ki-84 or Spitfires also have small fuselages compared to the size of the wings).
* The area of the side surface is also very small when compared to most other planes, like Charge has observed.
* The overall ratio of the plane's breadth (from wingtip to wingtip), to the length(from nose to tail), is also much larger than other planes.
If there is something indeed wrong with how AH2 FM handles planes of these profile types, perhaps it is not completely wrong, but rather exaggerates an already natural tendency these sort of planes might actually do have in real life.
My 2 cents.
-
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....
-
I believe this is the official report.
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_501355.pdf
-
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...
-
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.
-
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. :aok
-
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....
-
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.
-
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. :lol
-
I think in these kind of exhibitions some pilots tend to overestimate the capabilities of their planes. E.g.
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a234/BE427TJ/Y-Net%20Photos/MiG-17tail-dragcrop.jpg)
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHB-9V-VORU)
Good thing aerobatics are not possible with HMS Victory, otherwise for sure you couldn't visit it now.
-
:lol Now if fights only got that low in AH!
-
Originally posted by Wes14
:lol 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by humble
If you look at operational losses you'll find most units lost more pilots to operational accidents then actual combat.
Complete BS. Perhaps a few American outfits that hardly saw any action did, but the RAF, Luftwaffe and IJA/IJN certainly lost more pilots to enemy action than in accidents. As usual you're completely full of it.