Warbird Information Exchange

Hi - Finally made it on to the forum after messing up my registration – well it was something to do with a server failure – or so the message said! At least that’s the story I’m sticking to!

I have a couple of quick questions re an RAF Mustang IV (P-51K) crash I have been researching in which the pilot was thrown out during a roll.

Is it possible for a pilot to be thrown through the canopy on this type of aircraft? Has anyone heard of such an accident?

The harness straps were reported as having broken – again has anyone come across this?

Evidence suggests that canopy may have been open, leading to my second question - Would a pilot fly this aircraft with the canopy open under normal circumstances?

Remember we are talking England here – Also this happened in February (Cold!) and after a ferry flight from Scotland (even Colder!) to which he may have been returning, as visibility at his destination airfield was so poor he was unable to land. Finally the pilot had a disability due to a war wound, which caused him problems in cold weather.

Any comments much appreciated.

_________________
Regards - Nick - Lancashire UK

"Ex tenebris Lux"

http://laituk.org/

Interesting question

With the canopy open and the harness undone, the issue of "falling out of the airplane lies with the caliber and type of roll being performed.
If a barrel roll or even an aileron roll done with a neutral stick in pitch through the back side, there would be positive g's on the airplane throughout the roll. This would tend to keep the pilot in the seat.
On the other hand, if the roll was a slow roll or point roll, the airplane will be a 1 negative g inverted and that very well could result in an unwanted egress from the cockpit. One thing about such a situation.
Passing through inverted in a slow roll you have the stick basically in the forward front corner; how far forward depending on the airspeed during the roll. As you felt yourself sliding out of the seat the natural reaction would be to pull on the stick releasing the forward pressure causing the negative g. I would be expecting this "reaction" to be applying positive g on the airplane resulting in a nose down attitude but negating the egress from the cockpit.
Just a wild guess here as although I've done countless rolls of all kinds in the 51 I've never actually rolled a 51 with the canopy open and without having done a VERY thorough preflight check on my harness integrity )
A direct answer to your question is yes, it's possible, but really only feasible in the slow roll scenario.
Dudley Henriques

_________________
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

IIRC Bob Hoover had a similar incident where his harness broke in Old Yeller while inverted and he fell into the canopy. How you escape an incident like that is a miracle. I would think that it would be pretty hard to break or knock out the canopy though.

_________________
Jeff

Welcome to the forum!

Bill Greenwood's answer is here:
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... hp?t=26245
- with a resulting discussion. Unfortunately, even as a Mod I can't merge threads.

A couple of points. What Dudley calls a 'point roll' would've called been a 'hesitation roll' or '4 or 8 or point roll' (as appropriate) in the wartime RAF, I believe.

A British based Mustang lost a canopy over Germany recently, while in transit - presumably a canopy could be lost, in fact it's more likely, while manoeuvring.

Broken harnesses were very rare in W.W.II, except after accidents where they exceeded the load factors. But it could happen, for instance a damaged harness not spotted due to wartime haste and pressure.

HTH!

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Hi Everyone & thanks for all the replies, some excellent information and viewpoints - all very much appreciated + some fascinating "bonus" information as well!

A bit more on the crash - there are two reports that form parts of the original 1945 Investigation report. The first states that:

The Mustang was seen to make a shallow dive from about 1,000ft over the village and then climb up again and commence another dive, this time from about 800 ft, again on a south-north heading having orbited the village. It was then seen to complete a roll to the left, steady momentarily, and then begin another roll to the left. During the second roll the pilot was seen to leave the aircraft, which immediately dived vertically to the ground with the engine running.

The second differs slightly:

The witnesses statements indicate that he made a shallow dive at about 1000 feet over the village and then climbed up to approximately 700 to 800 feet, and then commenced to orbit the village. Again on a South to North heading he commenced another dive immediately rolled over to the left again still losing height. During this roll the pilot was seen to leave the aircraft and the aircraft completed a roll and immediately dived straight into the ground at high speed. The pilot was thrown forward and was found 40 yards ahead of the crash with his parachute open but undeveloped and parachute cords around his legs.

The aircraft was new having been assembled at Lockheeds at Renfrew after being shipped over to the UK. Comments were made about the difficulty in adjusting the harness straps and that the pilot followed the common British ferry pilot practice of sitting on the aircraft's manuals and logbooks - I would think this lot would create a veritable snowstorm of paperwork if flown with the canopy open?

Comments are made elsewhere in the report about observed injuries including possible bruising to the eyelids and "suffusion" of the eyes, which it was thought might indicate the effects of negative G - though medical opinion seems to have been divided and it also says a severe blow to the head could have caused this - in view of what happened to the unfortunate chap and an eyewitness I have spoken to, who described the impression he left in the field where he came down, makes me wonder how any of his injuries could be attributed so specifically!

I really am not happy with the report, as it lays the blame on the pilot for carrying out unauthorised aerobatics and makes comments about his psychological state. The manoeuvres made were hardly spectacular aerobatics and even the report concedes that there was really no one around to see them anyway. The more I looked at the details, the more it reminds me of another incident we investigated a couple of years ago - P-51B Mustang 43-6635 http://www.south-lancs-aviation.co.uk/New%20South%20Lancs%20Aviation/P-51%2043-6635.htm also lost on a routine ferry flight. That aircraft was newly assembled at Speke and was being flown to Warton for further modification, when it suffered a fuel or glycol leak - the pilot, Flight Officer Eugene Stanley Rybaczek, tried to save the aircraft and to put it down on a satellite landing ground at Knowsley Park. Witnesses saw vapour streaming from the obviously open cockpit and the aircraft made unexpected manoeuvres before it stalled and crashed on the threshold of the runway.

Could this chap have opened the canopy to try to clear such a problem and then lost control? Others have said the manoeuvres appear more like he was testing the aircraft or had a control problem?

_________________
Regards - Nick - Lancashire UK

"Ex tenebris Lux"

http://laituk.org/

Mod edit: I'm just locking this thread so we don't play ping-pong between the two threads for further discussion.

More discussion here: http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... hp?t=26245

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com