Vidéo : Un avion de chasse Spitfire se retourne pendant le décollage (Meurthe-et-Moselle)

- le fait de pas vouloir blâmer un copain pilote qui a fait une bourde sur un truc qui vaut une fortune ?

Ok, many have asked for an opinion about this wreck. How about we just stick to facts instead? This is not speculation. I have now watched three different videos of this event and many freeze frames and here’s what we know:
1. The aircraft nosed over. It did NOT ground loop.
2. It happened early during take off roll.
3. The Spitfire has very little ground clearance on the propeller. The normal take-off procedure calls for a tail-low or even three-point levitation off the ground.
4. The Spitfire has a unique pneumatic braking system. It’s a rudder bar that manipulates a series of valves that provide differential braking to the two main wheels by means of a brake handle on the stick. A proven system that works relatively well. But it does make it IMPOSSIBLE to apply rudder in one direction and brake in the other.
5. The Griffon powered Spitfire is a counter-clockwise (left) turning engine. Which means it has Right-turning tendencies, which require left rudder and aileron to keep the aircraft tracking straight during takeoff.
6. Torque (which this aircraft has a lot of) rolls the airplane, which would mean the Right landing gear has a lot more weight on it during take off roll and, in turn, provides more friction.
7. The aircraft took off from grass. Which potentially could increase the Mu-factor if it was soggy.
8. The Spitfire is a very tail-light aircraft. As a matter of fact, it’s common to put a person on the tail as dead weight should you need to taxi on soft ground. No one rode on the tail during taxi out and the aircraft had no apparent issues during taxi.
9. If one brake is applied on any aircraft, it induces a yaw, which can result in a ground loop. It does NOT result in a nose-over. Both brakes would have to be applied aggressively.
10. It’s impossible in the Spitfire to apply both brakes equally while the rudder is deflected. During most of the videos, the rudder is deflected far to one side.
11. In the freeze frames, the tail was purposely lifted off the ground early during the take off roll
12. It’s impossible to determine what the power setting was during take-off. The Griffon sounds angry even at cruise power. However, the book calls for and incremental increase in power as the rudder increases in effectiveness. Full power is NOT recommended for take-off until after you break ground.
13. While the aircraft was close to level, the elevator was in NEUTRAL. No apparent indication of the pilot trying to prevent the aircraft from having such a low nose attitude.
14. It’s not possible to see the aileron position in any of the videos I watched. However, the right gear appears to be experiencing a lot more weight than the left, which would indicate that ailerons were not used to compensate for torque.
15. The rudder was properly deflected to the left as the tail was rising. The aircraft did not appear to swerve more than normal.
16. When the prop struck the ground, the pilot immediately initiated full up elevator and full right rudder. This makes sense as the nose sharply dropped and swerved violently to the left while the prop acted as a gear on a rack, driving the nose to the left from the physical contact with the ground.
17. The violent torque experienced by the airframe as the prop firmly grabbed a hold of the ground is not something it was designed for. The weak spot was the spar, which twisted between the load of the propeller and the landing gear as it failed. This makes complete sense. The surprising result of this much force was that the landing gear did not break off.
18. I cannot tell in the video if the canopy was open or closed, though it was probably closed. Something we normally avoid in most aircraft of this caliber (not all, for various reasons) just in case of a flip-over on takeoff. It is not clear in the video how he actually escaped the cockpit. Most who flip over a Spitfire do not survive if you look at previous similar accidents. He was very lucky.

Unknowns:
1. What were the actual field conditions?
2. Was there a mechanical malfunction? Such as a locked brake system? A broken elevator cable? A runaway throttle?
3. Was the pilot incapacitated in some fashion? Seizure, heart attack, bee sting, snake in the cockpit?
4. What were the pilot’s previous training and experience in the Spitfire?
5. Was the strip marginally short for a Spitfire? (Unlikely, as there was a SeaFury present)
6. Was there a quartering tailwind?
7. Did the pilot have his seatbelt tight? Perhaps a bump lifted him out of the seat and forced improper control inputs?
8. Do we know what we don’t know? Hardly. There may be other factors that will be discovered in the investigation.

Outcomes:
1. A spectator was injured from flying debris. Let’s all hope she recovers quickly without any permanent issues. How will this affect similar operations in the future. More rules?
2. The pilot was injured, but survived. Chances are he’ll heal, but he will forever be kicking himself if it turns out he was responsible. A tough thing to live with. He does not need to be belittled by anyone. He’s already suffering severe consequences from this experience. To error is human, we all too often fail to remember that and tend to throw stones in glass houses.
3. The airplane was severely damaged. Unfortunate, probably preventable, but it’ll fly again. This is what insurance is for. If not, someone will buy the wreckage and restore it anyway. Playing with old airplanes has inherent risk and significant costs. But I’m sure we all agree; it’s still very much worth it.