Hawker Hunter crashes at airshow; multiple dead reported

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: F4guy

I didn't see any either, but I've seen other compressor stalls that didn't leave any smoke. Quite a few actually. Multiple investigators that watched the video seem to think the engine flamed out after that flash. It didn't sound like it cut out completely, which is why I said compressor stall.

A compressor stall is a momentary occurrence that causes quite a loud bang. I've never had an engine quit from one, but it can cause some damage. If I were the investigator on this one, I would vary carefully look at the pitch trim system. The T7 doesn't have a trim tab, the whole tailplane moves to change the angle of incidence. A runaway or jammed trim could be catastrophic.

Don't know enough about small planes to comment on the crash...

To those commenting on the age of the plane I have to laugh... 2 planes I've worked on the first was the B-52 built in 60 and 61. Or the 135 built between 56 and 59, 707s were built in the 70s and still fly all over the world.
A well maintained plane can easily fly decades...

a reply to: Irishhaf

The inquest for this started and then adjourned in Horsham this morning.
The final official death toll is lower than was first believed at 11 people.

a reply to: Imagewerx

any futher news on this, how is the pilot ?

a reply to: weemadmental

It's starting to look like a failed suicide or sudden onset of insanity. More like failed suicide. Started 300 feet below the legal height, plane responding to controls, cut the loop short and stalled.....

a reply to: Kester

Failed suicide? Are you kidding me? So a pilot makes a mistake, and it's a failed suicide?

originally posted by: weemadmental
a reply to: Imagewerx

any futher news on this, how is the pilot ?

He is in a critical but stable condition,he was thrown clear of the aircraft but it's not known whether he fired his ejector seat or was caused to fire itself because of the impact.

A preliminary report by the AAIB using footage from a couple of HD cockpit cams indicates that the aircraft was responding properly to flight controls.The pre-flight checks before the Hunter left North Weald in Essex were carried out properly and the pilot was said to be in good spirits.

The hearing has been adjourned until a review hearing March 22nd next year with the full hearing on June 11th.

a reply to: Imagewerx

They did a check the day before that didn't find anything wrong with the aircraft either. They're speculating the long takeoff was due to hot temperatures and a tailwind.

assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Imagewerx

They did a check the day before that didn't find anything wrong with the aircraft either. They're speculating the long takeoff was due to hot temperatures and a tailwind.

I'm only about an hour or so drive from North Weald and it was average temperature for the time of year in this country,from memory only about 20 degrees or so.It's not like it was trying to take off from one of those strips in Death Valley.

a reply to: Imagewerx

Yeah I figured it didn't get that hot. They're still analyzing the audio from the cockpit to determine of there were any problems after takeoff. God knows I've seen that happen often enough.

originally posted by: Kester
a reply to: weemadmental

It's starting to look like a failed suicide or sudden onset of insanity. More like failed suicide. Started 300 feet below the legal height, plane responding to controls, cut the loop short and stalled.....

Why don't you tell us the "legal height" to begin a quarter clover in a Hunter T-7, considering, of course, aircraft basic operating weight, fuel on board, density altitude, g-loading at initiation and apogee, entry calibrated airspeed, indicated airspeed and true airspeed corrected for deviations from SAT. Or you can just admit that there is no such thing since the CAA only mandates a floor and not entry heights, and that you just made it up. And then please tell us why you felt like you needed to fabricate such a statement. And I said "please."

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Imagewerx

Yeah I figured it didn't get that hot. They're still analyzing the audio from the cockpit to determine of there were any problems after takeoff. God knows I've seen that happen often enough.

28 degrees at Stanstead (only a few miles up the road) that day according to the AAIB and an 8 kt tailwind,so not really enough to double the take-off run I'd have thought?

Even at 30 degrees it's take off run with full drop tanks and zero wind speed should be 1100 yards.......

www.rafjever.org...

a reply to: Imagewerx

they used to do that in Leuchars, they would extend the run so that the whole length of the crowd would see the aircraft running, might be all it is

a reply to: Kester

i wouldnt have thought that this was a suicide attempt, he was trying to recover the aircraft and it stalled, if he was going to commit sucidie im sure that he would have flown the craft staight into the ground or building, if he was wanting to take people with him, there was a fair few people at the show, few degrees off course, open the burner and go in inverted, would take hundereds.

i think that the most likely was a compresser stall, lack of a bang at the right time and the aircraft was doomed the moment it started the manouver.

originally posted by: weemadmental
a reply to: Imagewerx

they used to do that in Leuchars, they would extend the run so that the whole length of the crowd would see the aircraft running, might be all it is

But it took off from a different airfield from where it was doing the display,it was based at North Weald and not Shoreham so it was irrelevant who was watching it take off.

According to the reports I've read, he was LICENSED to perform the loop at above 500 feet (not a LEGAL height but a LICENSED height, huge difference), but for reasons unknown he began the manoeuvre below the LICENSED height.

originally posted by: BMorris
According to the reports I've read, he was LICENSED to perform the loop at above 500 feet (not a LEGAL height but a LICENSED height, huge difference), but for reasons unknown he began the manoeuvre below the LICENSED height.

It's not really a license, per se, but an authorization to perform aerobatics below the normally allowed altitude, which is 1500 feet in the US. And you are allowed to begin a maneuver below that altitude if you are above your "level" for the aerobatic part of the maneuver - generally described as more than 30 degrees of pitch and/or 60 degrees of bank.An example would be, for instance if a flat inverted spin is recovered at 500 feet and the next maneuver is a torque roll, you would want to dive as low as you can to gain speed for the vertical entry to the torque roll. As long as the initial pull isn't too readical at initiation you would be OK. And I apologize for using the American spelling of maneuver/manoevre.

a reply to: BMorris

Legal applies to statutes which are only applicable with consent. All rules, regulations and licensing rely on consent. Legal and Lawful are two completely different things. We all naturally understand Law. No harm, damage, fraud or theft.

Agreeing to perform above 500ft and then starting the loop well below that height may constitute fraud, particularly if a high paying private audience were positioned to benefit. Therefore this would have been an unlawful act.

Legislation may come out of this. All pilots who consent to statutes will be affected.

a reply to: Kester

And this loop was legal, as stated above by F4guy. Yes he started below 500 feet, but the aerobatic portion was above that altitude as required.