Spitfire crash

Author
Discussion

Voldemort

Original Poster:

6,861 posts

292 months

Sunday 1st June
quotequote all
From f/b - so might be true

F-AYXX Supermarine Spitfire RM927 Biscarrosse France 30 MAY 2025
(On Landing Hit A Trench Nosed Over & Destroyed The Propeller)
1 POB - No Injuries


Simpo Two

88,922 posts

279 months

Sunday 1st June
quotequote all
https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/515793

But why would you land in a field that had trenches in it?

Alex Z

1,765 posts

90 months

Sunday 1st June
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/515793

But why would you land in a field that had trenches in it?
Presumably because you either couldn’t make it to a better field, or didn’t see the trenches because of crops?

Simpo Two

88,922 posts

279 months

Sunday 1st June
quotequote all
Alex Z said:
Simpo Two said:
https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/515793

But why would you land in a field that had trenches in it?
Presumably because you either couldn t make it to a better field, or didn t see the trenches because of crops?
Because something else had gone wrong, eg engine failure.

mikef

5,598 posts

265 months

Sunday 1st June
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/515793

But why would you land in a field that had trenches in it?
Because you need to land into wind to keep float distance to a minimum, there are usually very limited landing site options once gliding, and the actual nature of the ground tends not to be visible until it’s too late to aim for an alternative

IanH755

2,289 posts

134 months

Sunday 1st June
quotequote all
For those who can't see the image in the OP (I couldn't), it's this -



and then afterwards


Eric Mc

123,834 posts

279 months

Monday 2nd June
quotequote all
Is this the same one that went over on its back a few years ago?

aeropilot

38,203 posts

241 months

Monday 2nd June
quotequote all
Unless the engine was already dead before the nose-over, that Griffon might be toast......


Austin Prefect

947 posts

6 months

Monday 2nd June
quotequote all
Given the prop damage, I'd say it probably was.

zsdom

1,498 posts

134 months

Monday 2nd June
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Is this the same one that went over on its back a few years ago?
I dont think so, I think this is the one that was completed at Sywell 18-24months ago

aeropilot

38,203 posts

241 months

Monday 2nd June
quotequote all
zsdom said:
Eric Mc said:
Is this the same one that went over on its back a few years ago?
I dont think so, I think this is the one that was completed at Sywell 18-24months ago
Correct.
First flew at Sywell in July 2022 (by the late Richard Grace) after its restoration, and it was first time it had flown for over 70 years.


SFMG

1 posts

4 months

Monday 2nd June
quotequote all
I live in Biscarrosse and fly there. From the info that I got the pilot landed safely and was taxiing out of the runway, following a clearly marked path. Recent work was done to improve the drainage with some pipe buried under a layer of sand.
For some reason ( it didn't happen to the other classic aircrafts like a Yak 3), the Spitfire wheels get stuck in the sand and the aircraft nosed over.

Fortunately, it happened at very slow speed and from what I heard, it is believed that the aircraft could fly again in a few weeks with a new propeller.

The aircraft is F-AYXX. It served with both the Royal Air Force and the Belgian Air Force during its operational years and after complete restauration it is flown by Brice Ohayon from La Ferte Alais.

eharding

14,522 posts

298 months

Monday 2nd June
quotequote all
aeropilot said:
Unless the engine was already dead before the nose-over, that Griffon might be toast......
Wooden props tend to cause much less shock loading to the engine if they hit something than metal ones - when I was in an Extra that had a gear collapse on landing, I saw the ends of the prop evaporate but no discernible impact - so a good chance the engine can be overhauled, and maybe the shock loading inspection might not find any damage. Won't be cheap though.

Both of my old aircraft shares - a Pitts and a Yak - had prop strikes (not me!) and the engines were both used again. It turns out the Monty Barrett in the Pitts had been quietly heading for a failure anyway, so my co-owner kind of did the group a favour when he slammed it into the runway at Elvington (and didn't notice the missing ends of the prop blades until he shut down the engine). The Yak took out the APAPI stand on 21 at Waltham, which also put the kybosh on night flying for a while, but from memory it just needed a shock loading inspection rather than a rebuild.

zsdom

1,498 posts

134 months

Monday 2nd June
quotequote all

Austin Prefect

947 posts

6 months

Monday 2nd June
quotequote all
eharding said:
Wooden props tend to cause much less shock loading to the engine if they hit something than metal ones - when I was in an Extra that had a gear collapse on landing, I saw the ends of the prop evaporate but no discernible impact - so a good chance the engine can be overhauled, and maybe the shock loading inspection might not find any damage. Won't be cheap though.

Both of my old aircraft shares - a Pitts and a Yak - had prop strikes (not me!) and the engines were both used again. It turns out the Monty Barrett in the Pitts had been quietly heading for a failure anyway, so my co-owner kind of did the group a favour when he slammed it into the runway at Elvington (and didn't notice the missing ends of the prop blades until he shut down the engine). The Yak took out the APAPI stand on 21 at Waltham, which also put the kybosh on night flying for a while, but from memory it just needed a shock loading inspection rather than a rebuild.
The people (re)building a Tempest IV are planning to use a wooden prop rather than metal for just that reason.
How much do you have to dismantle an engine to check for shock loading?

eharding

14,522 posts

298 months

Monday 2nd June
quotequote all
Austin Prefect said:
How much do you have to dismantle an engine to check for shock loading?
I've never done it myself, just seen the relative size of the bills for an inspection vs a rebuild, and you'd rather be paying the former! I think the Yak engine was inspected in place, I'd guess most of it done with a borescope. The Vedeneyev M14P is a fairly solid lump though - the engine involved in the prop strike was itself a replacement for one which had a cylinder break off the crankcase in flight but kept running long enough to get back (that one *was* scrapped afterwards however). I also remember being in the clubhouse and hearing KH take off, a bang, some very rough engine noise and then the crash alarm sounding - the old Russian spark plugs had a habit of blowing out the ceramic cores, the cylinder appeared to have kept firing even with a hole where one of the plugs used to be, given the amount of scorching on the surrounding HT leads, but again the motor kept running. We had a conversion to western plugs done after that.




Simpo Two

88,922 posts

279 months

Monday 2nd June
quotequote all
zsdom said:
That is indeed unfortunate to say the least!