Spitfire "crash": pilot pulled wrong lever

I did the same exact thing with my RC P-51 Mustang.... don't feel quite so bad about that now!

Any of you pilots have stories of similar "oops" that resulted in, at worst, some bent aluminum or at least red faces?

Spitfire crash landed after pilot 'pulled wrong lever' - Telegraph

A Second World War Spitfire crashed after landing when its pilot pulled the wrong lever, an accident report has concluded.

The plane had successfully landed at East Midlands Airport and was taxiing off the runway when the experienced 46-year-old male flyer selected the handle to retract the landing gear, bringing the wheels up and ditching the aircraft on the ground.

The pilot's error on January 7 this year shut the runway in Derbyshire for more than two hours, with flights having to be diverted or delayed.

A report bulletin to the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) read: "The pilot stated that he had intended to retract the flaps but inadvertently selected the undercarriage to the 'up' position.

"However, the handles for each mechanism are on opposite sides of the cockpit."

The pilot had more than 9,200 hours' flying experience, of which 89 hours were in this type of plane, according to the report.

The wooden propellor on the 1945-built Mark XIX aircraft shattered as the plane grounded, with the crash also damaging the left wing and parts of the engine housing.

Unlike modern aircraft, there is no fail-safe switch preventing the undercarriage wheels from being retracted once the aircraft has landed.

The plane, owned by Rolls-Royce and based at the airport, was flown in the war on reconnaissance missions but has more recently taken part in aerial displays.

 

How many aircraft and pilots were lost in the war simply from mistakes and poor training. I bet quite a few.

 

This all reminds me of one of my favorite scenes from Battle of Britain about sage advice from a crew chief to a young pilot after a near gear up landing...
Start at 7:06


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t43w9oFIXcU&list=PL65B969D905A9DA0E]Battle of Britain Movie Part 2 - YouTube[/ame]

 

The thing that surprised me the most is that the Spit had a wooden prop.


Thought those were a thing of the past for a WWII fighter.

I know there were variable pitch propellers before then, even in the 30's.

 

Surely adding a fail safe switch would be a sensible idea?

Pete

 

Very few planes of that era (the plane was designed in the 30's) had them, and it is a question of where does one draw the line I suppose.

 

There was an old-school theory that, if you were running off the end of the runway at a high rate of speed, you should raise the gear to help slow down.

 

The wooden propellers in WW2 were not like the old wood props of WW1. They were laminated with waterproof glue, impregnated with a resin, and then pressed to shape under high heat and pressure in a mold. The result was a strong composite that was used on the Hurricane, Spitfire, FW190, ME109, Heinkles,Ju-87, JU88, and a lot of lighter aircraft. Rotol, Hartzell, Beach-Roby are names that come to mind.

 

Thanks Bob... was hoping you'd answer.

Just assumed that by then, all military planes would have had variable-pitch props. (They have to be metal, as far as I know.)
I know counter-weighted variable props had been around for quite awhile.


So, the wooden Mosquito would have to be included in the wooden prop club, probably? ha.

 

Only the blades were wood and they were variable pitch.

 

But the U.S. did not do this, correct?

 

I think that's correct. I never saw a wooden prop on anything but aPT-19 or a Stearman. We didn't have a shortage of aluminum like those industries in Europe.

 

Thanks - that was what I thought as well.

BTW - I have a picture of the prop blades (wooden composite) on the high-altitude TA-152 version of the Focke-Wulfe 190, and they are absolutely HUGE...paddle shaped things that really do look more like a boat paddle than what we think of as an aircraft propeller.

 

Did some reading... wiki, etc.

Santos-Dumont made probably the first aluminum blade propeller (on steel shaft) about the time the Wright boys flew.

...and one of the great thing the Wrights did was invent (with their wind tunnel) a modern, efficient (wood) propeller design. So good, that there was never a need for any great improvement in the profile. Before them, early designs looked like marine props, screws, feathers and leafs.

 

Low wing loading design.. There is an FW-190D-9 in the Paul Allen collection and it is obvious that the airplane was designed for high altitude work. A striking airplane.

 

Yes - the wings are stretched out almost as dramatically as a U-2.

 

Yes, correct. I was alluding to the low wing loading design of the propeller blades. I have read where this airplane was a feared adversary by bomber crews.

 

The 2 F-82's that are being rebuilt will be using wood propellers due to the complete lack of original props. The testing was done on a early model Mustang and they look very correct except for the material of course.

There are many cases of pilot's still landing gear up even with the horn.

My own Father landed gear up several years ago with the horn blaring away which both he and his instructor thought was the stall horn. Problem is there is a gear horn in a T-34 but no stall horn.

P-51 has a simple green light when both gear are down (nothing for tail wheel at all), so we make sure to feel the bang of each gear as it locks to make sure it is down and locked.

Forgot the old saying but something like this
A good landing is when you can fly the airplane again
A bad landing is when you can't taxi in even with full power

 

Very interesting about the twin Mustangs - is this (prop unavailability) because they had contra-rotating props? (A line drawing I have of this plane shows contra props)

I assume that the engines were Allison V-1710s like the P-38 (not the R-R Merlin) and there would be both left and right turning versions. So then the props were different from the P-38 units - or were they the same but just not available now?

 

I'm also surprised the Spitfire didn't have an interlock preventing this from happening. They surely drilled it into pilot's heads which lever was for the gear and which was flaps but after returning from a harrowing mission this had to have happened more than once back in the day.
Does anyone know how such an "interlock" functioned on later planes that had one? Before the age of computers I imagine it was a mechanically actuated switch based on compression of the LG struts?

I can see that if there was a complete brake failure or if their plane was toast (out of fuel or mechanically damaged) and they landed late and couldn't jam the throttle and go around again, but curious if there was any circumstances under which a pilot would chose to belly land (other than a failure to drop all gear?)?

 

I have never heard of that theory (pulling up the gear at the end of the runway to help stop). Anybody else care to comment?

 

I didn't say it was a good theory!

 

It would probably help, prop digs into ground...

If soft ground, it might prevent ending up upside-down if the wheels dig in.

 

And the prop would not tend to turn you upside down?

 

I think it would break first, like it did in the subject of this thread.

One advantage of a wooden propeller, I suppose.