Crash au decollage a Villette-Longuyon le 11 juin 2017 * Jukin Media Verified * Find this video and others like it by visiting www.jukinmedia... For licensing / permission to use, please email licensing(at)jukinmedia(dot)com.
Edifiant et terrifiant: ce gars s’est pris pour le cow boy qui échange son cheval avec l’autre copain (Sea Fury contre Spit’): résultat, le rookie s’est fait botter le cul par le pur sang, nommé Spitfire... Le bonnet d’âne pour le débutant présomptueux, et honteux...
Gas a fond manche en avant sur l herbe alors que l avion ne roulait pas encore assez....du boulot d amateur. Gaz, manche en arrière, prise de vitesse et la on relâche doucement une fois qu on est sur et si on a un peu de vitesse, surtout sur terrain mou
Note to self: don't ever go to that airshow. No ambulance, no fire services. Just two volunteers huffing across the field with portable fire extinguishers. Everyone was lucky there was no post-crash fire!
After 15 Minutes (!!) there is NO ambulance or fireengine at the pilot - this is very sad and not acceptable!! In Germany this would never Happens and its a miracle that the plane doesn t burn to dust - LUCKY PILOT!!
Big props are what got him in trouble to begin with... smaller props next time maybe? In fact, I believe you may bear some responsibility in this accident.... What do you have to say for yourself?
In the accident report, it says that pieces from the propeller injured two spectators, one badly. It was an experienced pilot with many hours on vintage planes, but this was his first flight on a Spitfire.
@@joim3480 The French Aeronautic Accident investigation report, states in black and white, that this was the pilots first ever flight in a Spitfire, although he had arrived at the air display as the Pilot of a Hawker Sea Fury. The Pilot stated in a subsequent statement that the engine was a full boost when he began the run to get air-bourne. He was familiar with a number of warbirds, but not in any way experienced in the characteristics of a Supermarine Spitfire.
A lot of individuals that no needed to go to the accident site... Only people of fire extinguish and crew dedicated to rescue the pilot is necessary to maintain near the plane...
J'ai glissé chef, comment on peut filer les commandes d'une Ferrari a un mec qui 'a jamais eu un bolide ? Ça me dépasse pauvre spit et deux personnes grièvement blessées
I wonder what sort of credentials this guy had. My neighbor was an Aussie spitfire pilot during the war flying mk14’s. He said he would never take off with the canopy closed because in a ground emergency you cannot get out.
Should always have emergency services on stand by, especially when it’s a public display .if that had burst into flames with those helpers al round . Would have been more than 1pilot ...
Kate Battye there's a decent crowd of people watching aircraft take off and fly in front of them, as well as manoeuvre. Unless they just turned up coincidentally, it looks like a display as I understand it. I think there should be emergency services. Others take a different opinion.
@@odd_shoes Doesn't matter what that 'event' was called. This guy displayed (or tried to...) a Griffon-Spitfire known for its challenging take-off behavior from a bumpy grass runway without any responders on scene. If that thing would've caught fire he where burned to death right in front of the crowd allegedly not being spectators...
on n'est pas sur un aérodrome qui comprend de tel matériel, il y avait un medecin et infirmier, les pompiers sont arrivés 15 minutes plus tard, faut pas confondre un petit aérodrome et ce qu'on voit à la TV sur de grands aéroports avec un trafic aérien intense. Il faut lire le rapport du BEA pour voir qu'il y a peu de fautes graves, hormis peut être la proximité du public, un peu trop proche, il y eu des blessés par les débris qui ont volés lors du crash.
hackneysaregreat .....I would've shot the stupid shit if I'd gotten there first. No assistance required. That was a pitiful performance by a rich idiot destroying....oh fuck it. Anybody that makes over $100,000 U.S. a year should not be allowed to fly WWII Aircraft!
Le plus choquant là dedans c'est pas l'accident, ce sont des choses qui arrivent. Mais avoir des autorisations, en 2017, pour organiser un meeting sans un seul mec au moins déguisé en pompier!!?? Incroyable... Dans un pays où il faut monter un dossier en préfecture pour avoir le droit de poser une échelle sur sa façade pour repeindre une fenêtre... Et la prise en charge du pilote, sur le gazon, à deux pas d'un avion qui peut cramer? Là y'a un gros problème.
Speaking last year to a spitfire pilot, I learnt that you actually have to maintain back pressure when the tail comes up because if the fuselage is parallel to the ground the prop will strike
I've just read the takeoff procedure for the Spitfire. Full right rudder for take off roll. Push elevator GENTLY forward to neutral, tail will lift at about 40 mph.You can see aircraft go to the left, so maybe not enough rudder. The tail comes up and straight over, so, too far forward on the stick. And yes, I am a pilot with tail time. Nothing as powerful as the Spit though.
One feature of the Griffon engine which was to catch a lot of pilots out was that the propeller rotated in the opposite direction to that of the Merlin; i.e.,: to the left, from the pilot's perspective, rather than to the right. This meant that the powerful slipstream swung the Spitfire to the right on the ground, requiring the rudder to be deflected to the left during takeoff. The power available for take-off was much greater; and the engine RPM were lower than in the Merlin. All this meant that the throttle needed to be handled judiciously on take-off. It would appear to much throttle and the resultant torque, can overwhelm the control inputs. this was a common occurrence with inexperienced pilots back then, and it would seem it still applies today. But hey ho could it be argued that a more experienced pilot on the type, would not have had any problem? Seen nothing here to suggest mechanical failure of any type. Pilot error. G
These planes today should only have the best aloud to fly them, there should be sim time for sure....either that or install computer controls to help prevent the loss of such planes, it’s not like they make bodies in white in a catalog, as they do for classic cars..
soaringtractor when was the last time you flew a Spitfire? Your problem is your just jealous of that pilot. That Pilot got the money to own ,fly and repair the old war bird. Human life is more important to the world then materialistic things. But I will just think of you as a thing and that your not human!
Not quite. I think the problem was the soft ground, and not a quick enough elevator response. You are supposed to get the tail up early on these tail draggers, to stop a premature take-off (which is what destroyed that DC3 in America recently). However, the tail came up far too far, allowing the prop to dig into the ground. Why? Probably the soft ground dragging on the wheels, and not enough elevator to counteract (if enough elevator was even possible). With that amount of slipstream, the elevator should be powerful enough to balance the aircraft in the horizontal, but with soft-earth wheel-drag, that might not be possible. And the result is a flip. (Comment from 1,500 hours on DC3s.) P.
@@paulspencer889 I was at ARC at Duxford where they were repairing the aircraft in the video and the Spitfire display pilot who was showing me around said that’s what he did wrong (open the tap too quickly) and the enormous torque at low airspeed caused it to nose over uncontrollably. As I said, he’s lucky it didn’t burn as the Mk XIV doesn’t have a hatch on the left side of the cockpit like other marks and he would’ve been trapped.
@@paulspencer889 I think he should have kept the tail on the ground for a bit longer and eased the throttle up more gently, it tipped over because there wasn't enough air flowing over the elevator which means it had no authority, you need air speed to get that undersized elevator to work, another problem with these low winged aircraft with huge props is the angle they need to sit on their wheels, because the air flowing over the top of the wing get deflected of the ground behind the wing and comes up under the elevator, at full power on the ground with the wheels chocked a Spitfire will nose over unless you hold full back stick.
Je suis d'accord avec toi, et je sais bien qu'il n'y a pas de SSLIA sur tous les aérodromes français, mais sur un meeting aérien quel qu'il soit je trouve ça un peu léger moi aussi, de ne pas avoir prévu au moins un camion de pompier ( qui est arrivé plus tard d'ailleurs ) juste le minimum quoi :( je sais bien que ça coute beaucoup d'argent d'organiser un meeting , mais on est pas passé loin d'un drame bien plus important là... s'il avait pris feu, si les débris avait massivement touché le public... Je ne suis pas adepte de la sur-sécurité qui ruine financièrement nos meetings mais en tout cas c'est la première fois que j'en vois un organisé sans aucuns services de secours qui soit. ( en tout cas je ne savais pas que c'était possible vu la réglementation actuelle ) Mais bref... pour l'avoir admiré une nouvelle fois le WE dernier à Cerny, c'est dur, très dur à regarder cette vidéo... ( PS: j'ai reconnu ton pseudo, je regarde de temps en temps tes vidéos et c'est chouette ce que tu fait ! continue )
le Faite est que lorsque c'est une Journée porte ouverte (comme c'est le cas ici) l'ambulance,pompiers et autres ne sont pas Obligatoire contrairement à un meeting aérien .
Can't really believe I've just watched a wonderful aircraft wreaked by incompetence and No crash tender ? no paramedic ambulance ? And how it didn't burn ? 2 guys with handheld extinguishers ? Shocked by the organisation on that field, you'd never ever get away with that in UK.
Not so sure about that.....no air show with heavy fighters should be allowed to operate with out good fire cover..Some years ago we could only instruct from licensed airfields. Which ment certain level of fire cover...however I used to operate a Harvard T6 in and out of un licensed airfields no fire cover....P.S.no pasengers just me ...
@@jpvanderhaegen À mon avis je pense surtout à une erreur de pilotage dans un autre reportage,C’est un jeune pilote de 40 ans qui a pris les commandes de cet avion qui déjà à l’époque était très dur à piloter ! Ils auraient dû laisser piloter cet avion à des vétérans de la guerre qui ont l’habitude des moteurs à piston 12 cylindres qui ont des accélérations fulgurantes ! Voilà où on n’en est avec l’inexpérience d’un jeune pilote ! Un avion de collection à 3 millions d’euros foutu ! Plus de 1 million d’euros pour le réparer
I agree with you one hundred percent... especially about the incompetence. Hard to believe how hard he overrotated this beautiful aircraft onto the main gear, and continued pushing until it was going past level attitude, still pitching forward, and then all of the aft stick in the world was not gonna salvage it. Of course, closing the throttle immediately might have helped, had he not already been about five miles behind the aircraft. Don't know what were the extent of his injuries, but he should thank his guardian angel if he does not spend the rest of his days rolling around in a wheelchair. And if he is ever able (or allowed) to fly again, I really hope that he is restricted to tricycle gear light airplanes, but certainly Not any high performance tailwheel types, whether a 200hp Pitts or a Spitfire. Wow... 🙄😔
@@flyingjohn2284 Is that UK? It's pretty crazy because i'm into motorsport and even small club events has fire cover from trackside marshalls. In rallying, years ago it was a requirement for cars to have a fire extinguisher but for some time now it's been a requirement to have in-line extinguishers.
yes this pilot put full gas engine , with this type of spitfire when you take off you should go slowly with the engine . after no problem . is typique from this aircraft with strong engine
Sad to see, he got the tail up far too soon. That is a well known issue with taking off in a Spitfire, a handful on the ground, take off and landing, but once in the it is superb to handle. Air display flying pilots are keen to put on a good display, all too easy to make a basic mistake. Glad the pilot made it out without the plane bursting into a fatal fire. This happened to many pilots during wartime, those with only minimum flying hours. The early Spits overheated very quickly and pilots were under pressure to get in the air with engine cooling from normal flight.
Uh, no. But an interesting read for certain. Pretty much any tail dragger is going to be a handful on the ground.... You don't get to fly one of the only and nicest examples of a WWII fighter aircraft unless you have THOUSANDS of hours flying similar type aircraft. This was not a noob pilot. And as far as the aircraft having more than trouble than others on the ground or being problematic in any sort of taxi maneuver..... This aircraft was SPECIFICALLY designed to operate off of dirt and grass and even wet uneven ground and was known as being an exceptionally good handling aircraft in just about every way and in just about every configuration. HOWEVER, the early models could lose power and even have an engine quit while inverted. Something they fixed with a modified carburetor and fuel delivery system.... Lots of planes have quirks when they first roll out. Ground handling was not one for the Spitfire.
@@christopherleveck6835 The accident report states he was a fighter pilot with 6100 hours, but only around 100 hours flying classic aircraft. It also states that this was his first flight in the spitfire, and that "he was surprised" by the spitfire being quicker in its response than a Sea Fury, which is the closest other aircraft he'd flown. So, essentially, he _was_ a noob. Accident report (in French) is here: www.bea.aero/uploads/tx_elydbrapports/BEA2017-0331.pdf
even in rc plane world everybody knows that you start from grass with elevator up so propeller doesnt touch the ground. but it seems this pilot forgot to use elevator
Well it must have been a RC model air show and as a surprise a guy with a 100 scale Spit shows up. That has to be the answer why there was no emergency equipment or rescue procedures in place.
How much time do you have in the "Spit", exactly? Asking for a friend. Who says you don't know what you are talking about by the way. The tail coming up is because of the crash, not the cause of the crash.
@@MrDyhard Well, as a Rafale french fighter pilot, that guy was not really an "amateur". He was having that day its very first solo flight on Spit'. And applied the same methods he was used to fly the Sea Fury... But not with the same results...I would rather call that a "lack of proper training". In all cases, sad and stupid to damage such a piece of Art! Extract from French regulation: "Flying a Spitfire requires only the SEP class rating, and there is no special clearance to fly vintage aircraft. The release of a new type of aircraft in the SEP class, whether single-seater or not, is not regulated".
He opened to full power too early on his takeoff roll and should have applied a little back pressure on the stick until she begins to fly off.STUDY PILOT NOTES BEFORE FLYING !! The airframe has now been shock loaded and it looks twisted along the fuselage. Long expensive engine and airframe rebuild. Also pre flight the condition of the runway in this case it could have been a wet airfield with soft ground.
Sad but most important: All spectators and the pilot is still alive. The rest can be fixed with a million euro and some ten thousand hours of work. Hope to see the UME again in the sky some day in the future. "The only dangerous thing at flying is the earth."
Griffon Spitfires have enormous amounts of torque that make them tricky on take-off. Obviously, the poor pilot had not had enough preparation on flying the aircraft. Modern aircraft are all computer controlled and I think you would have to go back to school again to fly a Spitfire. Hopefully, the pilot was not hurt.
Obviously lack of experience of the pilot on this type of aircraft....Too much throttle and lack of backstick at the start,,...nose dive is inevitable with that much power.
ABSOLUTELY... would be interesting to kinow if there IS a parking brake and if he set it for the runup. Appears he released it/them but they were dragging a bit and once it got some lift it lightened up enough for the wheels to stop rolling and start grabbing and over she went. I see dirt trails from both tires BEFORE the prop digs in.
Another well organized event, not, lucky no fuel leak , reminds me of early Grand Prix incidents where the spectators often flipped cars right way up and pulled drivers out of wrecks
These Griffon powered late model Spits take a different approach to getting airborne. The drill is to set trim slightly nose up..apply power very smoothly and slowly with adequate rudder input to keep her straight...as she has huge torque..and fly off the ground tail low. Big mistake to allow the tail to come up as you would in most any other single engine high performance fighter. I have seen these beasts fly off in a three point attitude..as there is scant room between the prop and the strip with the tail up. Shame.
so did this one have the 36 L motor with the 5 blade rotull prop they are a hand full way diff to to the old 27L motor id say this is what happen to old tin legs
3:20 power àpplied, takeoff roll begins, , empennage rises toward horizontal, but WITHOUT ANY ELEVATOR DEFLECTION suddenly rises too far DESPITE FULL UP ELEVATOR causing prop strike as airframe flips forward. Probable cause: inadvertent, possibly negligent, brake application.
I think the problem was the soft ground, and not a quick enough elevator response. You are supposed to get the tail up early on these tail draggers, to stop a premature take-off (which is what destroyed that DC3 in America recently). However, the tail came up far too far, allowing the prop to dig into the ground. Why? Probably the soft ground dragging on the wheels, and not enough elevator to counteract (if enough elevator was even possible). With that amount of slipstream, the elevator should be powerful enough to balance the aircraft in the horizontal, but with soft-earth wheel-drag, that might not be possible. And the result is a flip. P.
Very strange. Looked like the brakes were applied during the early part of the roll. The control stick appears to be fully aft - maybe too little, too late.
Stick does not go full aft until the nose over begins but you are otherwise ABSOLUTELY CORRECT... would be interesting to know if there IS a parking brake and if he set it for the runup. Appears he released it/them but they were still dragging a bit (overpowered by all that HP) and once it got some lift it lightened up enough for the wheels to stop rolling and start grabbing and over she went. I see dirt trails from both tires BEFORE the prop digs in.
Nope. Brake malfunction/inadvertent application... note the puffs of dirt from both wheels as it overrotates and flips. For details, see my lengthy response to superprick and confirmed liar Mark Der Kueer [below]
There is another video with a more nearly head on and telephoto perspective where I now agree the dirt is initially ejected sideways by a prop strike but this does not contradict the most credible references to official reports indicting inadvertent brake application causing the unstoppable tail rise.
Those taildraggers are not as easy to fly, as everyone thinks. Gun it just a bit too much? Up it comes. It needs to come up smooth & level. Simple pilot error- unless there's something we can't see- ie a throttle stuck, or the like.
Quand à parler d'erreur de pilotage sans savoir quoi que ce soit de ce qui s'est passé... Tiens, un message de la page Facebook de Philippe Chetail (journaliste a Aerobuzz) : "A tous les amis et passionnés du spectacle aérien. Nous venons d'avoir des nouvelles (à la source) de Cédric... Il va très bien ! Christophe, quant à lui, a déjà relevé la tête... c'est un battant...on le connaît... et on pourrait avoir quelques surprises dans très peu de temps.... Bien que nous sachions de source (plus que) sûre ... ce qui s'est réellement passé, nous nous garderons bien de tirer des conclusions hâtives, laissant, (tout en regrettant leur propos, quels qu'ils soient) à tous ceux qui se disent experts, spécialistes et consort, qui font du commérage à chaud une religion, le triste soin d'étaler leur "compétence" sur la toile... Combien d'entre-eux ont piloté un Spitfire ? et quels sont les présomptueux qui se permettent d'avoir un avis sur le pilotage de Cédric ? Cédric est et restera un TRES grand pilote et Christophe lui a redit sa confiance et son amitié... C'est bien là l'essentiel...! Catherine Maunoury, (double championne du monde de voltige), quant à elle, s'est contenté de dire : Si c'est arrivé à Cédric, çà peut nous arriver à tous !".... A méditer !"
Un pilote de chasse doit recommencer sa carrière entièrement de A à Z pour piloter un Warbird, surtout un Spit qui n’a rien à voir avec un chasseur d’aujourd’hui, et dont le pilotage n’a rien à voir non plus avec les Warbird de l’époque... Peut importe sa carrière avant, se qui compte c’est le temps passé à voler avec cet avion ! Son ancien pilote le connaissait de A à Z, il appliquait tout son savoir en volant avec, aujourd’hui il est en réparation pendant encore 9 ans si je me trompe pas... Y’en avait que 2 en état de vol dans le monde... Je me permet de dire ça car j’ai parlé avec un pilote qui avait volé sur Spit, et j’ai aussi vu ce MK19 voler à merveille, toute les têtes étaient tourné vers lui, encore plus que n’importe quel avion d’aujourd’hui ...
@@NTNgamer117 merci pour cette bonne nouvelle ! Je la fais suivre pour les quelques passionnés qui m entourent. Et bravo à ceux qui l ont rendue possible !
Au départ le pilote devait prendre les commandes d'un bébé Jodel , qu'il a estimé trop puissant à son goût vu sa faible expérience en monomoteur à hélice .
Je vais expliquer ce qu'il s'est passé : Quand vous faites décoller un avion, la vitesse atteinte alors que l'avion est toujours au sol vous permet de faire lever l'arrière de l'appareil, même si cela ne s'est pas fait naturellement, avec la portance des ailes. Cela demande néanmoins une intervention humaine. La majorité du poids d'un avion est situé à l'avant : Il y a le moteur, les réservoirs de carburants, l'armement et les munitions. Au lieu d'attendre que l'avion décolle de lui même, ce qui est évidemment la meilleure solution et la plus sécurisée, le pilote du Spitfire a poussé la gâchette de l'avion vers l'avant, faisant lever ainsi la queue de l'appareil. Sauf qu'il a trop forcé sur les commandes, et que l'hélice a touché le sol. Cela a causé une décélération assez brutale de l'avion, comme on peut le voir en vitesse x0.25, et à cause de cela il s'est retourné.
@@frencharmyregiment9215 Bref le pilote est totalement inexpérimenté syr ce type d'appareil et comme il est un as sur Rafale ( hum hum ) personne n'a osé lui donner les conseils nécessaires. Résultat : un appareil qui a échappé à la Lufwaffe fint bêtement sa carrière entre les mains d'un crétin prétentieux. C'est comme un pilote de Ferrari qui se serait viandé avec une Simca 1000 pour avour négligé que la Simca 1000 exige un certain doigté. Et la Dauphine Aerostable était pire !😂😂😂
is it just me or does it look like the wheel breaks are on and thats what caused the crash, I know he had to taxi and stuff but wha if it happened when he lined up that would explain the tail comping up with very low air speed. also I could have been as simple as his prop being a bit bigger then he is use to and that struck the ground and caused the crash please keep in mind that I am by no means a specialist on spitfires and are basing this off the two times I have been in control of an aircraft
God bless the Pilot … but had he never flown a tail wheel aircraft ??? I can only assume that there are many other extenuating circumstances that I’m unaware of.
Rien à voir avec le pilotage de jet. Il n'y a pas de couple de renversement sur un avion à réaction Pour avoir piloté ce genre de machine, je me permet de faire mon petit commentaire. Sur ce type d'avion Il y a un énorme couple de renversement au décollage. L'hélice du spitfire tourne dans le sens antihoraire vu du cokpit. Soit un couple de renversement qui à tendance à le faire partir vers la droite avec en plus la combinaison d'un couple piqueur. Sur la vidéo, la queue s'est soulevée aprés la mise en puissance, je pense plus aux freins qui ont été caressé trop fermement au début de la phase d'accélération pour garder l'axe. au moment où le couple est puissant et où les gouvernes n'ont pas encore leur pleine efficacité. Donc sur ce type d'avion il vaut mieux garder un peu d'appui sur la roulette arrière lors de la mise en puissance et surtout ne pas pousser trop vite surle manche et attention à la gestion des freins. Ou bien avion mal trimé pour le décollage?......
piloteademai waouh j'y connais rien en pilotage d'avion mais c'est comme si conduire une formule 1en mode première vitesse moteur à FOND 😄les aviateurs de maintenant seraient t'il capable de faire voler un ''coucou'' QUI à fait la bataille d'Angleterre??🤗bousiller UN moteur Roll Royce capable de faire la nik aux stuka ju(junker) 87je crois.. La sirène mais pas Délivrée ni libérée l'OL terrible bataille aérienne AH si ses messieurs avaient eu le ''''RAFALE''''MAINTENANT je crois que la guerre aurait fait moins de MORTS j'en suis convaincu.. énormément!!!🤗la guerre de papy boyington (les têtes BRÛLÉES😄...) est largement dépassé désuet ... mais je SUIS libre grâce à ses messieurs... .
Je viens de regarder une autre vidéo du même décollage dont je vous donne le lien ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vVydliEUxGw.html . On peut voir qu'a la mise en puissance la gouverne de profondeur est au neutre à l'avancement temps 0,12 de la vidéo. Donc à la mise en puissance , la profondeur n'était pas en position relevée pour plaquer la roulette de queue au sol. N'étant pas contré, et n'ayant aucune vitesse le couple à contribué au basculement du nez de l'avion vers le sol. On voit bien que la profondeur a été tirée ensuite. mais bien trop tard. Sur des machines d'une telle puissance c'est manche tirée, pied à contre et montée en puissance. ensuite on rend la main et on dose les corrections.
yes, but his is the brakes that stay locked (partially ) they talk about the accident in another video , not pilot's fault but brakes not checked enough when prepping the plane
exactly what I have been speculating in my replies to other comments.... probably from FS and RC "pilots". Thanx Ex= Stick does not go full aft until the nose over begins but you are otherwise ABSOLUTELY CORRECT... would be interesting to know if there IS a parking brake and if he set it for the runup. Appears he released it/them but they were still dragging a bit (overpowered by all that HP) and once it got some lift it lightened up enough for the wheels to stop rolling and start grabbing and over she went. I see dirt trails from both tires BEFORE the prop digs in.
First flight in a Spit, evidently nobody told him to maintain positive elevator to keep the tail on the ground until enough speed was achieved-causing a prop strike. A very soft field didnt the matters, but he should have eased the power in. Tough sledding right there.
pilote blessé (il etait conscient )et une jeune spectatrice blessé légèrement par un debris . ils ont été transporté a l hopital pour des examens. pas d autres nouvelles depuis le depart des ambulances
A woman was slashed and almost cut an arm by prop part. Yes, there were casualties, besides the wrecked vintage Spitfire. But there are idiots above saying it was not pilot error and it will be easy to repair all that damage. Suckers will suck instead of learning.
fun fact: the spitfires engine had a flaw where at a certain angle fuel wouldn't make it through the pipe in the fuel chamber due to how science works so as a result the engine would stall
@@conradinhawaii7856 sorry i wrote the comment wrong what i meant to say was if the spitfire entered a specific angle the fuel in the fuel chamber wouldn't be able to go through the pipe which would cause the engine to stall
@@the_guitarist619 And I am sorry, but speaking as a retired pilot and an A&P mechanic who has helped rebuild and maintain Merlin engines, your second comment makes no more sense than the first. Wow... 🙄
@@the_guitarist619 That has nothing to do with a RR Merlin engine. RR Merlin engines are fuel injected. Your link is right but that is valid for earlier spitfire variants with a float carburetor engine.
. . . great way to ruin a beautiful griffon spitfire. Very sad to see. That's really strange though.. ... it seems like the pilot pushed the stick down way too much. The tailwheel should have been up wayyyyy later on the take off roll. The other possibility was not enough right rudder to counter the torque of the Griffon since it spins the opposite direction compared to a Merlin....but that still wouldn't explain why he went nose down considering he had full up elevator by the looks of it.. possibly too little too late
Its hard to see on the video but i was trying to get a good look at the elevator, It should have been full up to keep the tail down till he had reached close to take off speed. From what I could see, it looked like he was holding neutral elevator. Inevitable end result , a nose over. Its a given for tail draggers.
Was not yet enough speed for that much elevator authority. Brakes are a far more possible cause, if either pilot error or some other fuckup. While having the stick fully aft is proper, better, and more safe, having the stick in the neutral position is not the likely cause, as the plane didn't have nearly enough speed for that to be the likely cause.
ce qui me surprend , c est qu apres 13 minutes il n y a toujours pas de service a incendie , ni ambulance ! accident surement due a un blockage du frein d une roue .
@@THE-BUNKEN-DRUM It had nothing to do with opening the throttle too early. He simply over-rotated with forward stick so aggressively that, by the time he realized his mistake, all the aft stick/up elevator in the world was not going to keep it from going onto its nose. And apparently, he also did not think to immediately close the throttle. Of course, by then, he was also miles behind the aircraft. Great job.
Every pilot learns from lots of little mistakes with simple luck on the pilot’s side, there is no need to excessively criticise not knowing the feel of a strange aircraft and having no ‘muscle memory’, lots of people contributed to that shocking event and they all would have learned a hard lesson.
le pilote est un des meilleurs pilote de chasse de l'armée de l'air française il a même étais présentateur rafale. Alors les gens qui disent que le gars ne sais pas piloter , quand vous aurez autant d'heure de vol que lui surtout sur chasseur ont pourras en reparler.
Il y a une différence a piloter un rafale qui est piloté par les ordi et un spit qui est piloté a l'ancienne avec un couple moteur énorme, inexistant sur les réacteur.
Effectivement, mais il n'est pas nécessaire de lui lancer la pierre car en pilotage l'erreur est à l'affût. Il aurait été préférable de garder la profondeur en butée et laisser la demoiselle prendre son envol en relâchant doucement. Cette technique est très différente de celle employée sur les avions de chasse moderne. le CG est aussi très différent ce qui explique l'embardée vers l'avant. Le groupe moto-propulseur situé devant en hauteur contribue à ce moment entraînant l'hélice vers le sol . Donc beaucoup de facteurs contributifs jamais un seul pour qu'il y ait une catastrophe. Ce pilote a toute ma sympathie et c'est une leçon à la dure qu'il n'oubliera pas de sitôt.
He may be an good jet jockey, but he is a moron tail-wheel pilot! He should never have been allowed in the cockpit with the engine running. He actively caused that accident by not knowing how to fly properly. But no doubt he has a chest full of metals and an ego to match.
You're the "moron" Mark. Probable cause: EQUIPMENT FAILURE He either set a parking brake or stood on the brakes for the runup. Appears he released it/them but they were still dragging a bit, with the full weight of the aircraft on the tires the brakes were initially overpowered by all that HP and once it got some lift it lightened up enough for the wheels to stop rolling and start grabbing and over she went. I see dirt trails from both tires BEFORE the prop digs in.
He may be a top fighter on jets but seemed very hesitant before take off? Tail dragger aircraft are not the same,hopefully hes ok. Poor emergency support at that airfield no emegency vehicles ?
As a paramotor pilot I'd say the ground was soggy, wheels dug in, and tail lifted too quickly, not enough ground speed. Main problem was the terrain..my under carriage is my legs, I've been wrong on the past though.
After seeing countless spitfires take off at duxford year after year all I can say is what the hell was he doing with the stick forward so soon. Tail should no way be lifted so soon on take off. Glad every one ok tho.
I would suggest watching this again This wasn't a Merlin engined Spit - If you watch in slowmo you will see the elevators where set neutrally and despite that the tail keeps raising - The plane had a very light load and the 2000hp Griphen engine at full throttle creates enough torque to leverage the plane, rotating the body: but with the wheels down they are a fulcrum to down the nose - This is why takeoffs runs for late war spits where long, They begin at 2/3rds throttle until you have control on the rear surfaces The Torque also caused many carrier crashes on takeoff for the same reason
@@bengrogan9710 Not quite. With all that slip-stream, the elevators should have enough leverage to keep the aircraft level. He just let the tail come up to far. P
@@paulspencer889 the video shows evidence against that however. You can see the elevators issuing full pitch up the second the tail is passing centre - if there was enough control authority that would have slammed the tail back to the ground
It definitely will be repairable. All parts for Spitfires can be manufactured new and all skills, tooling and assembly jigs that could possibly be required to repair it also exist. This company www.airframes.co.uk/ for example specialises in repairing and rebuilding Spitfires.
Falha absurda do piloto que não deu o tempo necessário para que o o avião pegasse velocidade o suficiente para que o profundor tivesse a ação suficiente para evitar o levantamento da causa.
Akosi pomaly sa rozbiehal a hneď sa preklopil na čumák. Zdá sa, že pri štarte nemal dotiahnutý knipel, alebo príliš skoro povolil, alebo stál na brzdách.
Ca ressemble à un départ avec les freins pas complètement lâchés ca, ca arrivait aux pilotes débutants qui utilisaient les freins pour contrer l'embarder du spit si trop de boost et pas assez de vitesse.
looks like the brakes were not free at all, maybe malfunction... too much throttle at low speed plus the bad rolling of the wheels on the grass probably caused this crash.
Strange with full left rudder during start with almost no wind, should have been a lot right rudder instead. Perhaps compensating for right Wheel accidentally braking which becomes more with more left rudder. In combination with to much Power and letting the tail to high. Braking right wheel will also increase the high tail, and the accident is a fact. Just speculating without all facts though. Hope the pilot didn´t hurt himself and get flying real soon. Human factor can strike even the best!
Ahh, did't know there was a counter rotating version of the Rolls Royce called Griffon. I can see that on pictures that the prop is turning the opposite direction, nice to learn something new. I'm more in to the Packard Merlin the Mustang version ☺️ That explains the left rudder! To much power and stick forward remains then.
My guess ground to soft along with too much power increase too soon , wheel's dig in and over she goes , seen it happen before , hope the pilot is ok !!
I am surprised to see that the wing spar bent so badly with such a small accident at low speed . Might be good it didnt get into the air. The other video of this crash shows something was very wrong.
No, he did not. He over-rotated with aggressive forward stick until all of the aft stick/up elevator in the world was not going to save it. He also missed his cue that it was time to close the throttle, among several other things. Great job.
Basic fail, the tail comes up to quickly and he does not react quick enough, at worst the stick should be neutral position to prevent overrotation, and yes a spitfire should take off with the canopy back until airbourne to give a field perspective.
So lucky the pilot was not hurt, cudos to the guys who ran out as well Ps, well done France, you ruined the Concorde and now you wrote off a spitfire, way to go 👌
Such a real heart ache to see this happen to such a beautiful and expensive plane! Glad pilot is ok!! I do find it extremely poor that no emergency procedure was in place!! A man running over with a fire extinguisher is just a joke!! Anyway I hope that spitfire was put back together and can still take to the sky again!! Its going to take someone with very deep pockets though!!😬😬😬
These took off everything. Even untrained 19 year olds took off from grass. This is simply pilot error. Glad he is Okay, but he should never fly a spitfire again
Il a eu du bol de ne pas prendre feu, pas de moyen de secours sur place, c'est un peu léger , j’espère que le pilote s'en est remis....Conclusion du BEA ?
trop de gaz au départ de ce moteur surpuissant et aussi surtout le manche pas assez tiré en arrière pour lever les ailerons de la queue et plaquer l'arrière de l'avion au sol avant de prendre de la vitesse !! semble il !!???
