Plane takes off without pilot at vintage airshow - Telegraph Airshow horror as biplane takes off without pilot and crashes into trees | Mail Online
This kind of thing was certainly not unknown in the past when aircraft needed their props swung. But the view would have been that someone had cocked up. At least, the intending pilot should never have swung the prop himself - he should have been in the cockpit and got someone else to swing it. And unless the aircraft was perfectly trimmed, it wouldn't have got very far if it did clear the trees. James McCudden's flying career very nearly came to an end on his first day as an 18 year-old Air Mechanic in 1913 - he idly turned a propellor; the engine burst into life, and the aircraft trundled forward into another. He only avoided being sent back to the Royal Engineers because it was his first day. Aircraft often had one of the ignition (magneto) switches mounted on the outside of the cockpit so that ground crew could quickly shut off the engine of a runaway. This can be seen on these picture of William Robinson's BE2c, and a Tiger Moth (in the latter, it is under the corner of the windscreen of the rear cockpit).
Adrian, I did wonder why he was doing it al himself - thanks for picking up on that. Being a WW2 type, with aircraft using electric starters and/or starter trucks, the whole hand-swinging is not something I know a lot about.
In the WW1 period, and in fact up to the advent of the electric or cartridge starters, they were supposed to use the "Contact" routine. The mechanic shouted "switches off", and the pilot checked that the magneto switches were off, and shouted "switches off". The mechanic swung the prop slowly to prime the engine and reach a compression stroke, then shouted "Contact" (not "switches on", which on a noisy aerodrome could be mistaken for "Switches off"). The pilot turned on the switches, shouted "contact", and only then would the mechanic (sometimes several of them in a human chain) pull the prop sharply to start the engine. This of course all had to be done along with precise settings of throttle, mixture and ignition advance, while also operating manual fuel and oil pumps until the engine was running and could pump itself.
There is a huge and on-going debate about whether historic aircraft should be flown. Some say they should not, as if they crash then history and a lot of work would be wiped out. Others say that aircraft are supposed to fly, not languish in museums, and it would be a shame if no-one ever again saw the sight and sound of, for instance a Spitfire in flight. My own feeling is that they should be flown in cases where there are several of the type flying, such as Spitfires, but if there are no others flying the operators should be a lot more careful, and fly them very sparingly and well within their aerodynamic limits. The most disastrous recent loss was that of Mosquito RR299 in about 1996; I don't think a Mosquito has flown since. I worry about the BBMF Lancaster PA474, though at least there is an airworthy Lanc in Canada, and several on static display. I trust they won't push the Vulcan anywhere near its aerodynamic limits either. The trouble is that the longer it is since an aircraft was in service, the less people there are with direct experience of it, so a lot of things have to be re-learned - occassionally the hard way (as with this Stampe, I suspect). And lets face it, a WW2 piston engine is a lot more complex than a modern turboprop; more moving parts, more parameters to consider in its operation.
There will be a law to stop historical planes beening flowen,once some-one gets hurt or killled. Exactly like the Titanic! I think those planes are dangous,once the planes reach a certain height,the engine just cuts out for some reason. It was a big problem in ww1!
I have visited a museum (which no longer exists) with aircraft that were reportedly airworthy but obviously hadn't been flown for ages. Despite the fascinating displays, it was one of the most depressing places I've ever been too. Happily, the closure of this museum led to some of the exhibits being returned to the air. I'm a firm believer of keeping history alive and the best way to do this is to operate machinery not just let it sit idle for decades. You're right about no Mossie flying since that crash, AR (and I'm assuming Kermit Weeks' one at Oshkosh has not moved from its place in the EAA museum). However, several projects are, rather excitedly, well advanced so we'll see another flying one soon. The '109G, Black Six, which pranged in '98 IIRC, did so due to pilot error, I believe, but wothout pilot injury fortunately. I'm in two minds about whether such rare aircraft should be flown but that is where they deserve to be.
I presume that swinging the propeller was like using a starting handle on a car? I wonder why it took so long for cars to use electric starters? Or was it just that we always had really old cars?
My '49 and '51 trucks have both. I'm guessing at times it was just too cold for the batteries to be happy all of the time! Mind you, they certainly didn't have any heaters to power...other than the 28hp one under the bonnet!
