Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mysticpuma

Spitfire clipped prop at Duxford during takeoff, narrowly escaped disaster. Video

Recommended Posts

 

 

Skip to the 2 minute mark, cheers, Mysticpuma

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of repair costs, there‘s probably little difference between this and flipping over. If you have to rebuild that Merlin after this, then you‘re easily in for spending half a million US$. Some added panel beating wouldn‘t make much difference anymore.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't be Duxford without the traditional yearly near disaster!

 

They certainly were all taxi-ing out very quickly!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2019 at 7:50 AM, ZachariasX said:

In terms of repair costs, there‘s probably little difference between this and flipping over. If you have to rebuild that Merlin after this, then you‘re easily in for spending half a million US$. Some added panel beating wouldn‘t make much difference anymore.

 

wouldn't it just potentially need a new prop ? I assume the wooden prop would break far in advance of causing damage to the engine ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ACG_Herne said:

 

wouldn't it just potentially need a new prop ? I assume the wooden prop would break far in advance of causing damage to the engine ?

It is still shock load on the engine. If you have that, it is very advisable if not the rule to rebuild the engine. The prop will be a mere £42k pound list price.

 

Back then, maybe they could say, "you know, you'll be shoot down anyway during your next mission and the engine sounds and runs nicely, so, yeah, new prop and off you go."

 

Today, you are looking at a 2.5 million £ investment in a rarity. Cranksaft failure in flying is very nasty, as it tends to not onl ymake you a glider, but a gilder on fire as opposed to"just" a blown prop gear that will make you a glider instantly when you least want it. I can't imagine them not stripping down the engine totally. Keep in mind, they rebuild an engine after 500 hours while the engine still runs perfectly fine. This is then billed at a £137k pounds. Last time I saw a crankshaft change (and engine rebuild) on an Aston Martin DB6, that was ~€200k. I can't imagine a big RR crakshaft to be cheaper than a small, 6 banger Aston.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ACG_Herne said:

 

wouldn't it just potentially need a new prop ? I assume the wooden prop would break far in advance of causing damage to the engine ?

 

That is a MkVIII -  so metal prop. Only early MkIs had a wooden prop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, unreasonable said:

 

That is a MkVIII -  so metal prop. Only early MkIs had a wooden prop.

 

Lt col Blyth showed a piece of his wooden prop which he kept from the documentary spitfire 944. 
he had to ditch on the airfield because the gear was jammed. He said he flew it as soon as they fitted a new prop and radiators.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, [_FLAPS_]Diggun said:

Only for a warbird. You can get a nice post war one for 1.4 mill... https://www.platinumfighters.com/spitfiresm845

 

Shall we start a kickstarter?

Trust me, the asking price is never an issue with oldtimers and should be disregarded if you really want to operate them. You buy them , then you bring them in your shop and then take a close look at it. That bill will give you a first impression about its future running costs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a tough thing. Something similar is true with old warships. Keeping them afloat is simply not feasible in the long run. Rust never sleeps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, cardboard_killer said:

It's a tough thing. Something similar is true with old warships. Keeping them afloat is simply not feasible in the long run. Rust never sleeps.

 

Same with all older vessels that are referred to as "she", in my experience.   

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knowing a good tinner substancially increases life quality, especially reagrding any vessels referred to as "she".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

a good tinner

 

Tinner??? Google Translate could not quite get this one.

 

Banker? Jeweler? Or are you referencing some stannic equivalent of Auric Goldfinger?

 

If so that is very funny but quite dark....  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Tinner???

Panel beater.

 

Edit: tinsmith would have been the word I guess. And yes, I intended to be somewhat mean. ;)

Edited by ZachariasX
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, panel beater is good and a little dark.

 

Stannic Tinfinger is therefore solely the product of my diseased imagination.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

Same with all older vessels that are referred to as "she", in my experience.   

 

Depends on the culture. In Russia, they are "he".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also known as a 'tin banger'.

 

Was at an airshow a few years ago and this old timer was talking about his air force experiences in WW2. His was ferrying Spits to Egypt. Taking off on the last leg to Cairo a pilot noticed his engine was running a bit rough after getting in the air. The pilot, a Polish W/C, checked the engine instruments and saw everything was normal so continued the flight. Accompanying a/c didn't notice anything wrong either. When he landed in Cairo he found out why the engine was running rough. He had a prop tip strike on take off, removing a few inches of prop tip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Spit is one of the only (if not the only) examples still flying with its factory engine. If the engine [edited] then that's really a true shame.

Edited by SYN_Haashashin
Language

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lythronax said:

This Spit is one of the only (if not the only) examples still flying with its factory engine. If the engine is fucked then that's really a true shame.

As long as the engine block remains it should be fine, also regarding being „original“. Most parts besides the block are consumables and today you can build those parts in higher quality than was deemed practical back then. Also, today there are some people that are very proficient at servicing and building Merlins. Along with the whole body of the Spitfire, a lot of parts you can have from the shelves now. That however does not mean that they are cheaper, but it means they are readily available and that someone can help you fixing it.

 

It is clear that the plane needs a new prop. Also it is clear that you need to rebuild the engine to check each part, this being a standard overhaul. As for the rest, you shall see what you find.

 

Taking a very close look at an old timer almost always results in significant damage to your wallet, regardless whether there was an oopsie or not. So if spending half a million pound just like that over an oopsie is a problem to you, you shouldn‘t operate a Spit. You can see, the asking price is only in the range of three to five oopsies. On terms of a cars, this is almost like „you can have it if you pick it up yourself“.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone just uploaded a close-up still image of the incident.

 

 

FB_IMG_1569480142874.jpg

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...