Alright. But I’ll answer the original bit if you don’t mind thanks as that was what I was referring to.
Carryfast:
The aircraft seemed to abandon its climb and entered a form of Split S turn not a loop because of loss of power.It also then failed to climb out of trouble after pilot had miraculously got it out of the resulting dive back into level flight and into a climbing attitude. For the same reason.
The fact is virtually take off power was what was needed in its climb to height and to get out of trouble after seemingly having abandoned the manouvre and the engine clearly didn’t provide it when and where it was needed.
The aircraft did initially pull out of a dive. However in what aerodynamic state remains to be pulled apart by AAIB. If the wing were in an accelerated stalled condition the above would not indeed be fact.
Whilst the aircraft appears to be in a nose high attitude it could be mistaken for a “climbing attitude” and therefore able to climb with application of thrust if not already applied. This is not the case in an accelerated stall. The angle of the relative air flow in an accelerated stall is in fact significantly high, beyond the critical angle of attack.
In this state application of full thrust alone, with no further height loss would unlikely be enough to facilitate recovery.
I’ll shut my gob now. The dog needs a pee (no I don’t mean me)
Freight Dog:
Alright. But I’ll answer the original bit if you don’t mind thanks as that was what I was referring to.
Carryfast:
The aircraft seemed to abandon its climb and entered a form of Split S turn not a loop because of loss of power.It also then failed to climb out of trouble after pilot had miraculously got it out of the resulting dive back into level flight and into a climbing attitude. For the same reason.
The fact is virtually take off power was what was needed in its climb to height and to get out of trouble after seemingly having abandoned the manouvre and the engine clearly didn’t provide it when and where it was needed.
The aircraft did initially pull out of a dive. However in what aerodynamic state remains to be pulled apart by AAIB. If the wing were in an accelerated stalled condition the above would not indeed be fact.
Whilst the aircraft appears to be in a nose high attitude it could be mistaken for a “climbing attitude” and therefore able to climb with application of thrust if not already applied. This is not the case in an accelerated stall. The relative air flow in an accelerated stall is in fact significantly high and the angle of attack on the wing, beyond the critical angle.
In this state full thrust alone with no further height would unlikely be enough to facilitate recovery.
In that case the question remains did it end it’s climb and enter its dive at the time and height of the pilot’s choosing.Or did it end its climb prematurely owing to lack of power and speed.Assuming the latter then the thing was probably doomed from that point being that there seems to be no way of aborting the climb into a loop manouvre,owing to loss of power,without going into a dive from whatever height the climb was aborted.
While this example suggests that the aircraft is capable of carrying out much tighter and more effortless loops and dive recovery than the example which crashed it.
Geez, give your brain a chance boss. Between debating about aerodynamics, world history and submarines you can’t be getting quality down time. I don’t, I’m jet lagged but that’s my excuse. Night
I am now of the opinion it is possibly just easier to agree with anything carryfast says as with each and every subject he reminds me more and more of the bloke down the pub who was in the SAS / SBS/ foreign legion etc., whilst also managing to fit the time in to be a trained aircraft mechanic, political historian, fountain of knowledge on any other remote subject. and anyone who disagrees just gets shouted down until they finish their pint and leaves the pub.
however during my time in the RAF one of the best sights was watching people practice for these type of events.
The-Snowman:
But it wont stop trucknets very own expert on everything dissecting the evidence and telling us all why it happened and why anyone who says differently is wrong.
I’m sure that the unfortunate pilot and those close to him would be happy to at least see some balance regarding the issue of possible cause.
war1974:
I am now of the opinion it is possibly just easier to agree with anything carryfast says as with each and every subject he reminds me more and more of the bloke down the pub who was in the SAS / SBS/ foreign legion etc., whilst also managing to fit the time in to be a trained aircraft mechanic, political historian, fountain of knowledge on any other remote subject. and anyone who disagrees just gets shouted down until they finish their pint and leaves the pub.
You mean that sort of guy you want to avoid like the plague in the canteen at a RDC
war1974:
I am now of the opinion it is possibly just easier to agree with anything carryfast says as with each and every subject he reminds me more and more of the bloke down the pub who was in the SAS / SBS/ foreign legion etc., whilst also managing to fit the time in to be a trained aircraft mechanic, political historian, fountain of knowledge on any other remote subject. and anyone who disagrees just gets shouted down until they finish their pint and leaves the pub.
You mean that sort of guy you want to avoid like the plague in the canteen at a RDC
yep! i have said it before and have to admit sometimes what carryfast says is very relevant and useful, the trouble is the amount of drivel you have to wade through prior with opinion etc. means a lot of the good stuff is skim read and not really taken note of.
has to be one of the most interesting facebook posts i have read smoking. and found this bit below (hopefully factually correct) interesting given the views on here!
With regards to the Hunter’s age, Hunter aircraft are still be operated by civilian contractors providing the military with services for which the military do not want to tie up their own more costly assets. Why, because they are simple and safe to operate. About the only downside is an axial flow engine which lacks the fuel economy of a by-pass jet engine.
Before the Hunters were allowed in to civilian hands, the type’s service record was examined in detail by the CAA, to assess its reliability. It was and I believe still stands as the UK’s largest exported military aircraft type and was revered by all countries and pilots who flew them.
It’s Avon engine is regarded as one of the most robust engines ever built by Rolls Royce. It is still used by power stations for auxiliary power generation. The London Underground also used them, I think again as an auxiliary power source or something to do with ventilation. Why? because they ran for hour upon hour with faultless reliability. While I was flying in the Fleet Air Arm, we had a Rolls Royce engineer talk to us about the Phantom’s engine. He had also worked on Avons. We still flew Hunters and I asked him how long could the engine run without oil pressure. I think his reply was something on the lines “we gave up try to find out after eight hours”.
Hunters, along with all ex military jets, indeed all ex military aircraft, are maintained and inspected beyond that called for by normal aircraft. That is NOT because they need it. It is because those who have the responsibility for the rules of their operation but do not understand the aircraft in fine detail, will see the buck stopping with them.
has to be one of the most interesting facebook posts i have read smoking. and found this bit below (hopefully factually correct) interesting given the views on here!
With regards to the Hunter’s age, Hunter aircraft are still be operated by civilian contractors providing the military with services for which the military do not want to tie up their own more costly assets. Why, because they are simple and safe to operate. About the only downside is an axial flow engine which lacks the fuel economy of a by-pass jet engine.
Before the Hunters were allowed in to civilian hands, the type’s service record was examined in detail by the CAA, to assess its reliability. It was and I believe still stands as the UK’s largest exported military aircraft type and was revered by all countries and pilots who flew them.
It’s Avon engine is regarded as one of the most robust engines ever built by Rolls Royce. It is still used by power stations for auxiliary power generation. The London Underground also used them, I think again as an auxiliary power source or something to do with ventilation. Why? because they ran for hour upon hour with faultless reliability. While I was flying in the Fleet Air Arm, we had a Rolls Royce engineer talk to us about the Phantom’s engine. He had also worked on Avons. We still flew Hunters and I asked him how long could the engine run without oil pressure. I think his reply was something on the lines “we gave up try to find out after eight hours”.
Hunters, along with all ex military jets, indeed all ex military aircraft, are maintained and inspected beyond that called for by normal aircraft. That is NOT because they need it. It is because those who have the responsibility for the rules of their operation but do not understand the aircraft in fine detail, will see the buck stopping with them.
Which obviously contradicts the Tintagel pilot’s comments.While yes we know the Avon is bullet proof but it’s fuel control system in the Hunter installation at least certainly isn’t.
While yes we know the Hunter is used in private civilian military contract service just like the two that crashed within a short space of time of each other not long ago in the States.
Doesn’t it stand to reason that a pilot who has survived a crash is going to say that type of aircraft is crap.
Therefore it also stands to reason that the hundreds of other pilots with many hours flying Hunters without issues will say they are very reliable.
Just because one man had an unfortunate incident, doesn’t mean the entire fleet is the same.
There have been very few Hunter crashes, and there are still many flying today, which would lead me to believe that can’t be that bad.
109LWB:
Doesn’t it stand to reason that a pilot who has survived a crash is going to say that type of aircraft is crap.
Therefore it also stands to reason that the hundreds of other pilots with many hours flying Hunters without issues will say they are very reliable.
Just because one man had an unfortunate incident, doesn’t mean the entire fleet is the same.
There have been very few Hunter crashes, and there are still many flying today, which would lead me to believe that can’t be that bad.
eagerbeaver:
How on earth has the pilot survived that crash?
Is that confirmed? I can only think he must of ejected from the aircraft.
Civilian aircraft cannot fly with ejector seats.
There is not one ex-military aircraft that retains this feature.
Fair enough never knew that,
just makes it more unbelievable he actually survived, when I first heard they pulled the pilot from the wreckage I assumed a low speed crash after landing and not to serious, when the next report said it crashed onto the A27 I thought the first report of the pilot surviving must be wrong, especially after seeing the pictures of the fire ball.
The front of the fuselage broke away on impact and was thrown clear of the explosion
don’t bother arguing with carry fast he will not give in until everyone in the whole world says yes you are correct, irrespective of any knowledge/facts/statistics.
109LWB:
Hunter…583 incidents in the world, over 60 years…
Lets have a look at the Phantom… Oh 618 incidents in the world in less than 60 years.
Not such a great record there either.
Are you seriously suggesting that there is any comparison regards the service utilisation ( flying hours ) of the Phantom v the Hunter over its service life.Bearing in mind a production run of 5,000 + v less than 2,000 for the Hunter.While it’s all about how many of those ‘incidents’ involved mechanical failure of the aircraft v the Hunter let alone the fact that a twin engined aircraft by definition has more built in surviveability than a single.
war1974:
don’t bother arguing with carry fast he will not give in until everyone in the whole world says yes you are correct, irrespective of any knowledge/facts/statistics.
I’d doubt very much if it’s ‘the whole world’ that’s trying to say that it is/was safer to let the Vampire and Hunter fly than the Lightning and/or Phantom.
For the same reason.
(no I don’t mean me)
