Breaking News...

[benwynn]

QUOTE (Adamski @ Dec 4 2009, 01:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What *is* well recorded is the widely accepted view (held by pilots at the time and since) that the Spit's narrowly spaced undercarriage wasn't a totally brilliant design - particularly for an aircraft operating off rough (grass) airstrips. The Me109 is slightly better - but look at the FW190.

Why is he then? As far as I'm concerned, he needs to learn to fly. He's pushing the aircraft beyond its limits. This isn't some kind of stunt plane. But then again, whatever. It's his money.

[Anthony]

He hasn't had what you'd call a good run, has he? Shame in a way - has the Spit actually made it to a display/airshow yet? It was embargoed for WOW 2008 and I don't remember hearing that it had made an appearance anywhere else.

[Adamski]

QUOTE (benwynn @ Dec 4 2009, 09:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why is he then? As far as I'm concerned, he needs to learn to fly. He's pushing the aircraft beyond its limits. This isn't some kind of stunt plane. But then again, whatever. It's his money.

Doug ... learn to fly?? You're kidding! ... have you seen his routines?

We really don't know the facts yet, anyway. He certainly landed with a strong tailwind - but who knows when it swung round? Also - the wheelbrakes could have failed or were partially ineffective for some reason.

For all we know, there may be a significant bump, soft ground, or trough at the end of the tarmac and his wheels dug in. Too many unknowns before we do the airline thing and label everything "pilot error".

[victor_alpha_charlie]

Hahahaha lets all make assumptions on the Doug's ability considering we know almost nothing about what happened!

[benwynn]

I'll rephrase - he should take some time to learn the limits of his new plane.

[cowpatz]

QUOTE (Adamski @ Dec 8 2009, 03:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not really getting at you, but I wonder a bit about that comparison . It's well known that in WWI, more pilots were killed in non-combat operations than in actual combat. I don't know about WWII, but I suspect the statistics are there ... somewhere ... and there may have been a pretty high accident rate with Spitfires - but because they may not have ended up in a death, many incidents may not have been recorded. Again - if you look at the statistics (there's a thread here on NZFF about it somewhere) very few pilots were that young. Many already had flying experience with other Air Forces.

What *is* well recorded is the widely accepted view (held by pilots at the time and since) that the Spit's narrowly spaced undercarriage wasn't a totally brilliant design - particularly for an aircraft operating off rough (grass) airstrips. The Me109 is slightly better - but look at the FW190.

I also thought (after the Masterton incident) that maybe there's an art to flying these idiosyncratic old aircraft that somehow just hasn't been passed down from WWII - but having seen how Doug flies everything else, I just can't make myself believe he couldn't fly a Spit "properly".

I'll go out on a limb now and say that this is a case of more dollars in the pocket than skill with the hands. I have seen it so many times before. This is a classic airframe that needs to flown with skill and very little risk. It would have had to have been one hell of a tailwind at Ardmore to have caused this. If indeed it was a tailwind then the track of the undercarriage is irrelevant.

[Ian Warren]

QUOTE (cowpatz @ Dec 4 2009, 08:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll go out on a limb now and say that this is a case of more dollars in the pocket than skill with the hands. I have seen it so many times before. This is a classic airframe that needs to flown with skill and very little risk. It would have had to have been one hell of a tailwind at Ardmore to have caused this. If indeed it was a tailwind then the track of the undercarriage is irrelevant.

Just on the whole narrow undercarriage thing, Adamski claimed the 109 was better in that regard than the Spit, well I watched "Worlds greatest fighter planes" last night, and one of their prime reasons for NOT ranking the 109 higher in their top 10 was because of the extremely high number of aircraft lost in take off and landing accidents due to the narrow undercarriage - they claimed 10% percent of all destroyed 109's was destroyed in a landing/take off incident...and according to Wikipedia:

QUOTE

At least 10% of all Bf 109s went lost in takeoff and landing accidents, 1,500 of which occurred between 1939 and 1941[/quote]

Pretty sure the spitfire never had a record like that...

[Adamski]

QUOTE (markll @ Dec 4 2009, 11:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just on the whole narrow undercarriage thing, Adamski claimed the 109 was better in that regard than the Spit, well I watched "Worlds greatest fighter planes" last night, and one of their prime reasons for NOT ranking the 109 higher in their top 10 was because of the extremely high number of aircraft lost in take off and landing accidents due to the narrow undercarriage - they claimed 10% percent of all destroyed 109's was destroyed in a landing/take off incident...and according to Wikipedia:

Pretty sure the spitfire never had a record like that...

You're quite right about the Me109 - I did say "slightly"

If anyone digs out similar statistics for the Spit, I'd be keen to know. I've often watched footage of Spit grass take-offs and seen them roll about quite alarmingly.

[FlyingKiwi]

The 109 is a smaller and lighter aircraft than the Spit, so I imagine, undercarriage issues aside, the yaw/roll effect would probably be more pronounced anyway. Not to mention the 109 doesn't exactly have a generously sized rudder!

[HueyTeam]

Here she is

[Ian Warren]

Andy , now that is sweet ! the distinctive engine sound coming head on , we had a gustav displayed at 1996 Wanaka Airshow ,

[spongebob206]

QUOTE (Ian Warren @ Dec 3 2009, 10:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Famous is the Spitfire with its narrow tracked gear , i do have the percentages here in the early days with off operations , guess more rushing , almost like this but recall a figure close to the twenties , and was mention the turn around of a belly flop , but today , well 1988 the late Colin 'Col' Paye chipped the blades on his Spitty , bill was something like $38,000 .. ironic part is the propellers , not sure now but then were made in Germany , .. each blade spruce handles 400HP and weigh in each just over 100Lb's , readying for a show puts some squeeze in time but to bugger it like that , ..... Its is a very high preformance type , Col Paye did it , Sir Tim Wallis did it .

As far as I remember the cost is not just the prop but the full bulk strip of the engine after the strike.

Now that that has to be expensive.

[Ian Warren]

The Stearman based at Wigram for the Barnstomers company required a engine overhaul , cost for that was $34,000NZ , heck that was 1999 , this wasnt ditched ,broken propeller .. simply the outright cost for operating a vintage warbird trainer , you could be right , but you can see why its worth 3mill on the books .. without a prop a museum piece .

[markll]

QUOTE (spongebob206 @ Dec 6 2009, 06:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As far as I remember the cost is not just the prop but the full bulk strip of the engine after the strike.

Now that that has to be expensive.

True, though I remember reading last time that it didn't need an engie rebuild, as there was no damage to it, so here's hoping it's the same this time.

Also you'd have to factor in the fact that you can count the number of places in the world that do Merlin engine overhauls/rebuilds on your fingers (and have change!), and that none of them are in NZ. The engine in one of these really is the most expensive bit...but you're talking mucho time too if it has engine damage...

[redkiwi]

Just out of interest - Benwynn and cowpatz, how old are you guys and how much real world flying experience do you have?

[NZ255]

QUOTE (redkiwi @ Dec 6 2009, 10:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just out of interest - Benwynn and cowpatz, how old are you guys and how much real world flying experience do you have?

ha
cowpatz only has a few hours on the boeing 747

just jokes on the "few"

lol

[Ian Warren]

Guys , No more Joshing or bickering , I only have 20 plus air hours , i like planes , i like to put them into a program and pretend to fly them , i like to have the expert online chat , and today or yesterday an example , our 'Waka172' , we tried the multi-play cockpit ! now this was brilliant . Something you can do in your own living room , we have real time pilots , and we are so lucky for that , Blake , myself tried to sort a few problems out that .. can confuse him and myself .... i would like to keep the knowledge of 'Cowpatz' as the Real Heavy metal driver , and Ben as the Camera guy , but in real both contribute , this little smash with the Spitty because they are so few ... Just say DAMN ! ... come on 'kiwi' , Its Doug's Spitty we have to worry about , it would be good to get him here , yes i no little chance of that .... think of the support he would get !

[Efliernz]

QUOTE (Ian Warren @ Dec 7 2009, 01:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it would be good to get him here , yes i no little chance of that .... think of the support he would get !

Doug and computers!!!! Yeah right. Rumour has it though he still checks his emails nearly weekly... He answers his mobile on the odd occassion when it's on...
Still - a really nice guy with passion for cool toys

We know Doug is very capable and I would like to think he was caught out by the wind on an unpredictable day. Unfortunately the only way to get better at landing a Spit is more landings.

[redkiwi]

QUOTE (NZ255 @ Dec 7 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ha
cowpatz only has a few hours on the boeing 747

Heh, it's always interesting to know. That's the problem with the internet forums - without talking to everyone on here you never really find out who does what in the real world.

It does seem like that Spitty really isn't having great luck, and one would hope that neither time was entirely the pilots fault. I guess time (and the CAA incident report) will tell!

[WannaBeBarn]

QUOTE (benwynn @ Dec 4 2009, 09:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why is he then? As far as I'm concerned, he needs to learn to fly. He's pushing the aircraft beyond its limits. This isn't some kind of stunt plane. But then again, whatever. It's his money.

Well, if FS is anything to go by, tail ender’s are difficult but not really while they flying, I find taxiing more of a challenge.

More interesting would be the history of that Spitfire, I’m wondering if its not a suspect rebuild after it fell out of the sky in WWII, maybe a latent defect in the thing, like maybe the engine didn’t rev up when he needed it, that’s all it would take while feeling out a new plane, no matter how good you are on others.

That’s my dream lying there as well, one day, I’m going to sell up, buy a Spit or a Mustang, and just keep flying, cant think of anything I’d rather do, do the whole ring of fire and never come back
What a waste lying there, but I have a feeling it’s a mechanical failure, wheels didn’t lock or something, probably not a flying problem, more like too keen to get the old bird in the sky and it wasn’t checked out properly, who knows?

I’m a newbie to flying, tried FS only 2 months ago, and haven’t stopped since, got 12 hours on a little Piper now as well, wish I had tried it earlier, absolutely love it.
Flight sim is great and I already know where to draw the line.

A spit or a mustang, nice nice nice, I think they smooth machines, beautiful to fly, cant wait for the real thing, but you wont catch me in a Bearcat ever, now that is an accident waiting to happen, far too much power on that animal, interesting to fly on sim, too much life insurance in real life

Anyway, new here, glad I found a busy flight sim site, others are dead and it seems Gates is firing the whole dev team so who knows what’s going to happen there as well, maybe he’ll open source it?

Oh I see the nick is wrong, supposed to be, WannaBeBaron, left out the “o”, now it seems I’m aspiring to be an inanimate farm object

Hi!