# Hurricane has an accident



## Milosh (Oct 8, 2015)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3uMDlp2dw0_

Published on Oct 6, 2015

After a practice for an airshow known as the Flying Heritage Collection SkyFair, this Hawker Hurricane from the Flying Heritage
Collection touched down on runway 16R and lost its right main tire, resulting in quite a bit of smoke and sparks.


----------



## Park (Oct 8, 2015)

Should have cut the fuel before landing? Looks like a prop strike?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Oct 8, 2015)

Looks like he _just_ got away without a prop strike, although it'll need a new wheel !
Considering the fire trucks were 'standing by', they seemed to take a long time to get there though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Oct 8, 2015)

Agreed.


----------



## Crimea_River (Oct 8, 2015)

There's a definite prop strike seen in the slow-mo. He did well to limit the damage.

Though posted 2 days ago, it's not clear to me when this happened. That Hurricane was to appear at the Abbottsford Airshow in late August but did not make the schedule due to an undisclosed problem.


----------



## Airframes (Oct 8, 2015)

Yep, you're right Andy. I watched the slow motion clips again, and there's a puff of smoke/dust as the prop tip strikes. It looked fairly 'light', so might have got away without shock loading the crank. 
I t seemed to nose over before any sign of the tyre either deflating, or parting company with the wheel - I wonder if that was through braking ? Although I'd guess a pilot with Hurricane hours in, would let the speed decay and the tail drop before applying the brakes.


----------



## Crimea_River (Oct 8, 2015)

I think it was flat before he landed. He called the tower to have the fire trucks ready so knew he had an issue. Seems he favoured the port wheel until he lost all lift and it's when the weight came on the right side that the wheel finally gave way.


----------



## Airframes (Oct 8, 2015)

Ah, got it. I hadn't heard all of the R/T chat the first time I watched it, as there was a truck outside off-loading a car, making a heck of a din !
I presume then, that he had a tyre burst on take off - plenty of time to think "Oh sh**, the landing is going to be interesting "!


----------



## Crimea_River (Oct 8, 2015)

Yep. The tyre burst, but it did not catch fyre....

Just got confirmation that this happened on July 24 and that would explain why it wasn't at the Abbotsford.


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Oct 8, 2015)

He did a excellent job of holding it on the runway and keeping it under control.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 8, 2015)

Yeah the pilot did a good job in a sketchy situation. Hopefully not too much damage done.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 8, 2015)

After it was shut down, you could see damage to the tip of the prop (bent back at the tip) resting at 8 O'Clock, the props at 2 and 6 O'Clock seemed to be in good shape.

He did a good job of setting it down in one piece and I have to wonder if he held the tail high while braking to prevent a ground loop.


----------



## gumbyk (Oct 8, 2015)

Airframes said:


> Looks like he _just_ got away without a prop strike, although it'll need a new wheel !
> Considering the fire trucks were 'standing by', they seemed to take a long time to get there though.



60 seconds from when they got the clearance to enter the runway - well within acceptable timeframes (ICAO recommended minimum is 3 min.).
They would have relaxed when it was clear that there wasn't a fire and the pilot was out of the aircraft.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 8, 2015)

By the way, about 2/3 of the way into the video, there's a warbird holding and I can't quite make it out...at first glance, I thought it was a Fw190, but then it looked Japanese...anyone have a better take on that?


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 8, 2015)

Good spotting there, Dave; it's a Zero. At 2:52 you can see a Boeing 247 and DC-3 in the background, too.

He did remarkably well to minimise damage; the sparks are probably from the U/C door and leg being worn flat. You can see the wheel leaving the aircraft at 1:25.


----------



## Airframes (Oct 9, 2015)

Yes, I understand that the time allowed from 'shout' to being on location is 3 minutes (it was two minutes on the grass field where I worked as volunteer fire crew), it just seemed a long time in the video.
I couldn't make out whether the tyre had detached from the wheel, which it looked like, or if the entire assembly had come off. The sparks/flames looked like an alloy wheel burning away.


----------



## Crimea_River (Oct 9, 2015)

I agree.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 9, 2015)

I suspect the whole wheel came off from the axle; it's highly unlikely that the tyre would rip from the wheel as a whole unit the way that one did, particularly if its going round. If it were damaged, it'd probably tear itself to bits, rather than remain whole and be able to bounce away. At 1:26, you can actually see the wheel kinking over and bouncing up and hitting the underside of the aeroplane and at around 1:24 you can see the aeroplane leaning heavily on the right wheel, just before the wheel departs; its possible that the extra strain on that side caused the axle or gear leg to fail.


----------



## Airframes (Oct 9, 2015)

Watching it again, and using 'Pause', it certainly looks like just the tyre, and not the tyre/wheel, bouncing and then rolling across the grass - the white edge marking on the runway can be seen through the open tyre. Just as it detaches, there is a flash at the base of the gear leg, which would coincide with the wheel making contact, although when the aircraft comes to rest, the wheel can't be seen.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 9, 2015)

Terry, if you go back and look, as the wheel assembly wobbles and tire comes free, you'll see debris scatter just as the starboard gear strikes the ground.

As the aircraft comes to a rest, you'll see some of that debris (appears white in color) and is rather large - I believe that the wheel shattered, letting the tire run away and the gear's axle/bearing assembly struck the ground first, gave way and then the fireworks begins.


----------



## Airframes (Oct 10, 2015)

Yep, I agree.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 12, 2015)

> I believe that the wheel shattered, letting the tire run away and the gear's axle/bearing assembly struck the ground first, gave way and then the fireworks begins.



Likely Dave, but I don't know why the hub would shatter if its not in contact with the ground - hubs are fairly robust structures designed to take that kind of impact and worse on a regular basis, it'd have to have been seriously compromised to shatter. If it did come in contact with the ground, the tyre would most likely burst. I still think that's the whole wheel assy bouncing away, not just the tyre.


----------



## gumbyk (Oct 12, 2015)

I can't work out how the leg wouldn't have dug in if there wasn't a hub still on it. 
The only explanation that I can come up with is that the bolts holding the wheel halves together failed somehow, allowing the tyre to come off, but still retaining some of the hub to roll on. As far-fetched as it sounds.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 12, 2015)

> I can't work out how the leg wouldn't have dug in if there wasn't a hub still on it.



Because of the forward motion of the aircraft - it's not going that fast. How is the tyre going to rip itself off the hub intact? It wouldn't. The tyre would blow if it was subject to that amount of force that it could be ripped off the hub. I've seen it happen on an A320 doing a heavy landing; the tyre burst into flames and tore itself to shreds.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 12, 2015)

nuuumannn said:


> Likely Dave, but I don't know why the hub would shatter if its not in contact with the ground - hubs are fairly robust structures designed to take that kind of impact and worse on a regular basis, it'd have to have been seriously compromised to shatter. If it did come in contact with the ground, the tyre would most likely burst. I still think that's the whole wheel assy bouncing away, not just the tyre.


If the tire were flat as he touched down, the alloy wheel can only handle so much force before it fails.

I've gone over the video a few times and there is a definately sizeable, light colored debris that flies away from the gear just before the tire comes away and heads off on it's own.

As the Hurricane rolls out, you can see the debris tumbling along behind, one of the larger pieces coming to rest not far behind the aircraft as it comes to a stop. Since the gear's door remained attached to the strut and there was no other damage to the aircraft, it led me to the conclusion that the wheel had failed.


----------



## Wayne Little (Oct 13, 2015)

Glad damage was limited....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 14, 2015)

Park said:


> Should have cut the fuel before landing? Looks like a prop strike?



The only time you cut fuel is in the event of a fire or if you're wheels up and/ or dead stick


----------



## Park (Oct 14, 2015)

OK, most prop planes I've flown recommended shutting down the engine on the effected side or in this case the only engine before landing to minimize damage in the event of a gear up or partial gear up landing.


----------



## gumbyk (Oct 14, 2015)

Really? What have you flown? I've never seen that in any flight manual I've ever read. 

Any idea what the shut-down procedure is for a Hurricane? Does it have an idle cut-off in the mixture, or do you have to shut it down on the magnetos?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 14, 2015)

Park said:


> OK, most prop planes I've flown recommended shutting down the engine on the effected side or in this case the only engine before landing to minimize damage in the event of a gear up or partial gear up landing.



Prop planes? Reciprocating engines have props as do turbo props - so let's be specific and do tell what you have flown!!!


----------



## Park (Oct 14, 2015)

87 different makes/models and variants of GA aircraft. I can think of a few low wing multi engine t-prop's that you wouldn't want prop parts coming through the aircraft.


----------



## gumbyk (Oct 14, 2015)

Park said:


> 87 different makes/models and variants of GA aircraft. I can think of a few low wing multi engine t-prop's that you wouldn't want prop parts coming through the aircraft.



Were these written procedures or 'hangar talk'? I've seen and heard of it done, but it was shutting the engine down in the flare (basically pulling the mixture instead of the power levers). 

Personally, I wouldn't be wanting to mess around trying to shut an engine down while trying to land a tail-wheel aircraft with a known problem. And shutting it down any time before the flare just removes your option of a go-around.

Has there ever been a reported incident of prop parts entering the cabin under these circumstances?

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZZvNmt57rE_

There was no significant damage to the fuselage in this incident.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 14, 2015)

Park said:


> 87 different makes/models and variants of GA aircraft. I can think of a few low wing multi engine t-prop's that you wouldn't want prop parts coming through the aircraft.



Your initial comment was about shutting fuel off to a single engine aircraft while the engine is still functioning, in the case of this thread during a potential landing gear failure. By doing that *you're trying to deal with one emergency by creating another!!! *There is NO gear up emergency landing procedures on retract single Cessna, Piper and Mooney products and definitely nothing about shutting fuel off EXCEPT when dealing with a fire or total engine failure and in the case of warbirds, I looked at the pilots notes for the Hurricane, Spitfire and RAF Mustang and nothing is remotely mentioned. If the landing gear is not coming down and you're forced to make a gear up landing, prop strikes at idle will not make a difference (even on a twin, I've put a few back together) but even before the first sparks fly off the aircraft, the insurance company bought the aircraft anyway so why even try to do something that will add another huge link in the accident safety chain?!?!?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Park (Oct 14, 2015)

You finally answered my question. I have never flown a war bird (all ways wanted too) and in my OP was wondering why not secure the engine to help prevent more damage. I see your reasoning so OK. 

There are so many aircraft types and procedures are different.

Also I would like to add that I don't like to "arm chair quarterback" about incidents or accidents because I was not there.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 14, 2015)

Park said:


> You finally answered my question. I have never flown a war bird (all ways wanted too) and in my OP was wondering why not secure the engine to help prevent more damage. I see your reasoning so OK.
> 
> There are so many aircraft types and procedures are different.



Agree, but I'd bet dollars to donuts you're not going to find any procedure anywhere that will have you shut down or cut off fuel to a good running engine unless there's a fire.


Park said:


> Also I would like to add that I don't like to "arm chair quarterback" about incidents or accidents because I was not there.



You and I both...


----------



## Park (Oct 14, 2015)

gumbyk said:


> Were these written procedures or 'hangar talk'? I've seen and heard of it done, but it was shutting the engine down in the flare (basically pulling the mixture instead of the power levers).
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't be wanting to mess around trying to shut an engine down while trying to land a tail-wheel aircraft with a known problem. And shutting it down any time before the flare just removes your option of a go-around.
> 
> ...




I'm sure there has. I know of an accident in Hawthorne, CA with a Metroliner that ran off the side of the runway and the prop strike that severely injured a pax when prop parts entered the cabin. 

This is the procedure for the Metroliner;


----------



## gumbyk (Oct 14, 2015)

Interesting... That's the first time I've seen that, thanks for sharing. 

Although, the forces transmitted from a feathered propeller blade to the gearbox would be greater than a power-off, or prop in beta. And the Metro has 4-bladed props, so you're going to bend at least one of them.


----------



## Park (Oct 14, 2015)

FLYBOY; maybe you and I can have a donut and a cup of coffee someday.


----------



## gumbyk (Oct 14, 2015)

I haven't been able to find anything about this incident on the FAA database. I was hoping there would be some definite information there. Anyone know what the rules are regarding reporting accidents/incidents over there? This would definitely be legally reportable here in NZ.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 14, 2015)

Park said:


> FLYBOY; maybe you and I can have a donut and a cup of coffee someday.


----------

