British Nimrod Crashed at Toronto Airshow
Dan Logan
crashed into Lake Ontario. No crew had been recovered by the time I
left.
The Nimrod is a maritime recon platform used in the detection and
attack of submaries. It's powered by four turbofan engines and looks
as though it would have the handling agility of a DC-10. In any event,
it seemed to me, although I'm no expert, the pilot was really putting
the plane through it's paces, with hard breaking turns during which
the wings would be almost purely vertical at the 12 and 6 o'clock
positions. I was astounded at these manouevers, which took place at
very low altitude (about 500').
What seemed to happen was that the Nimrod banked very hard and was
coming up out of one such turn. Naturally it probably had bled off a
fair amount of airspeed, and I thought that it must have tremendous
thrust in order to pull up out of the turn. It was perhaps 300' above
the ground at this point. Watching it slowly ascend however, it began
to seem more like it was stalling. The ascent became flatter and
flatter, the Nimrod eventually did an ugly pivot on its axis when it
had reached about 500' again and rolled over to drop towards the
ground. For a moment I thought this might be part of the routine--it
almost looked like a mini wing-over. But it soon became apparent that
it wasn't. Just before the plane hit the water, I thought I saw two
objects fire upwards, and wondered whether there had been an ejection.
[A commentator on the frequency scanner stated he saw flares, but I
certainly didn't.]
The impact from the crash on the water created an extremely
low-pitched boom, and a moment later you could physcially feel the
impact in the air of that crash, as though you were hit by a small
shock wave.
It took the two rescue helos about 10 minutes to get to the crash
site, and they stayed on station revolving immediately over the crash
site for about half an hour. Someone standing nearby me had a
frequency scanner and we were able to pick up the conversation. The
Nimrod had a crew of three onboard, but apparently none of them could
be seen on the water's surface. After about 30 minutes, the helos
began to widen the search radius.
I left feeling very shaken after what I had seen at about this point,
thinking that if the crew hadn't been recovered after 40 minutes in
the water, likely they were finished. I hope I'm wrong, but tomorrow's
papers will no doubt tell the full tale.
Cheers,
Dan
__________________________________
Daniel Logan lo...@idirect.com
Michael Colangelo
: I attended the Toronto Airshow today, and sadly the British Nimrod
: crashed into Lake Ontario. No crew had been recovered by the time I
: left.
Condolences to our British friends across the Pond.
Regards,
MFC
Dan Logan
>Just before the plane hit the water, I thought I saw two
>objects fire upwards, and wondered whether there had been an ejection.
>[A commentator on the frequency scanner stated he saw flares, but I
>certainly didn't.]
Just a follow-up. I've now seen news footage from the air crash of
the Nimrod, and what I had hoped were ejection seats were in fact
impact debris thrown up.
The news is currently stating that a crew of 7 are all believed to be
dead.
__________________________________
Daniel Logan lo...@idirect.com
DAVID SHEARMAN
: I attended the Toronto Airshow today, and sadly the British Nimrod
: crashed into Lake Ontario. No crew had been recovered by the time I
: left.
Dan, the RAF is saying the seven crew are still "missing"
according to CFTO news this evening.
In 1978 I was in an RAF Nimrod (tail no. 43) for the Saskatchewan Air
Show at CFB MooseJaw. It was an exciting ride.
It is indeed a sad day. I was at the CNE in 1965 when one fo the Blue
Angels hit the breakwater in the Western Gap in a Grumman Tiger. Not a
good space.
Thanks for the description of the accident, from your vantage point.
It's in sync with the video I saw on CITY. I have to wonder about bird
ingestion. Damn seagulls... the Board of Inquiry will tell, though.
A midair with anything else would be impossible. Curiously, I was
talking with an air traffic controller this afternoon about how they
handle the air show... he used the words "high aircraft control and we
sanitise the area." No other aircraft in the vicinity.
--
(Rev.) David Shearman,
Blackstock, Ontario, Canada
Ian Mac Lure
: I attended the Toronto Airshow today, and sadly the British Nimrod
: crashed into Lake Ontario. No crew had been recovered by the time I
: left.
CNN has film. They say there were seven crew aboard.
: the wings would be almost purely vertical at the 12 and 6 o'clock
: positions. I was astounded at these manouevers, which took place at
: very low altitude (about 500').
I saw a Canadian CL28 Argus ( Britannia wings/tail + Canuck fuselage
and honking big radial pistons ) do a chandelle after a full bore low
level beat up of CFB Greenwood. You've got to remember that for the
ASW crowd throwing their mounts around in steep turns at wave top
altitude. Yeah its dangerous but on the other hand losses are lower
than you might think ( the Canucks lost one aircraft in 25 years of
hard service when a wing tipdug in on exercise in the Caribbean )
: What seemed to happen was that the Nimrod banked very hard and was
: coming up out of one such turn. Naturally it probably had bled off a
: fair amount of airspeed, and I thought that it must have tremendous
: thrust in order to pull up out of the turn. It was perhaps 300' above
: the ground at this point. Watching it slowly ascend however, it began
: to seem more like it was stalling. The ascent became flatter and
: flatter, the Nimrod eventually did an ugly pivot on its axis when it
: had reached about 500' again and rolled over to drop towards the
: ground. For a moment I thought this might be part of the routine--it
: almost looked like a mini wing-over. But it soon became apparent that
: it wasn't. Just before the plane hit the water, I thought I saw two
: objects fire upwards, and wondered whether there had been an ejection.
: [A commentator on the frequency scanner stated he saw flares, but I
: certainly didn't.]
It was initially reported that the engines were heard to stop.
Is this correct? I don't believe there are ejection seats on
Nimrods. What I saw on the film was debris.
[SNIP]
: It took the two rescue helos about 10 minutes to get to the crash
: site, and they stayed on station revolving immediately over the crash
: site for about half an hour. Someone standing nearby me had a
: frequency scanner and we were able to pick up the conversation. The
: Nimrod had a crew of three onboard, but apparently none of them could
: be seen on the water's surface. After about 30 minutes, the helos
: began to widen the search radius.
The CNN film showed one angle with a UH-1 in the foreground. There was
a guy standing to the left of the Huey who ran to it almost before the
plane hit the water. Still 10 minutes to get a rescue helo at a major
airshow?
: I left feeling very shaken after what I had seen at about this point,
: thinking that if the crew hadn't been recovered after 40 minutes in
: the water, likely they were finished. I hope I'm wrong, but tomorrow's
: papers will no doubt tell the full tale.
I'm sorry to say but at the speed and angle the plane hit survivors
are extremely unlikely.
--
*******************************************************************
***** Ian B MacLure ***** Sunnyvale, CA ***** Engineer/Archer *****
* No Times Like The Maritimes *************************************
*******************************************************************
* Opinions Expressed Here Are Mine. That's Mine , Mine, MINE ******
*******************************************************************
Bill Seward
<snip>
>What seemed to happen was that the Nimrod banked very hard and was
>coming up out of one such turn. Naturally it probably had bled off a
>fair amount of airspeed, and I thought that it must have tremendous
>thrust in order to pull up out of the turn. It was perhaps 300' above
>the ground at this point. Watching it slowly ascend however, it began
>to seem more like it was stalling. The ascent became flatter and
>flatter, the Nimrod eventually did an ugly pivot on its axis when it
>had reached about 500' again and rolled over to drop towards the
>ground. For a moment I thought this might be part of the routine--it
>almost looked like a mini wing-over. But it soon became apparent that
>it wasn't. Just before the plane hit the water, I thought I saw two
>objects fire upwards, and wondered whether there had been an ejection.
>[A commentator on the frequency scanner stated he saw flares, but I
>certainly didn't.]
Condolences to our UK friends.
Given Dan Logan's report, and after viewing the film on CNN, is it
possible that this is a replay of the B-52 crash some time ago where
the pilot pushed the plan out of its' flight envelope?
J.J. Litchford
lo...@idirect.com (Dan Logan) wrote:
>
>What seemed to happen was that the Nimrod banked very hard and was
>coming up out of one such turn. Naturally it probably had bled off a
>fair amount of airspeed, and I thought that it must have tremendous
>thrust in order to pull up out of the turn. It was perhaps 300' above
>the ground at this point. Watching it slowly ascend however, it began
>to seem more like it was stalling. The ascent became flatter and
>flatter, the Nimrod eventually did an ugly pivot on its axis when it
>had reached about 500' again and rolled over to drop towards the
>ground. For a moment I thought this might be part of the routine--it
>almost looked like a mini wing-over. But it soon became apparent that
>it wasn't. Just before the plane hit the water, I thought I saw two
>objects fire upwards, and wondered whether there had been an ejection.
>[A commentator on the frequency scanner stated he saw flares, but I
>certainly didn't.]
>
video clip of the last 5-10 seconds of the flight. For what it's worth, the
crash appeared to be caused by anaccellerated stall (tight turn, decaying
airspeed, pitch down, incipient autorotation or spin, etc.) The clincher for
me was that the pilot clearly initiated the proper recovery technique. On the
video, the pilot stopped the autorotation, decreased alpha or angle of attack,
and rolled the wings level before impact. He needed another 200 feet or so to
effect a total recovery.
My condolences to the families and to the spectators who had to watch this
horror. I hope the national airshow survives.
HKL
Nick Challoner
> I have read this and similar postings from eyewitnesses and seen the short
> video clip of the last 5-10 seconds of the flight. For what it's worth, the
> crash appeared to be caused by anaccellerated stall (tight turn, decaying
> airspeed, pitch down, incipient autorotation or spin, etc.) The clincher for
> me was that the pilot clearly initiated the proper recovery technique. On the
> video, the pilot stopped the autorotation, decreased alpha or angle of attack,
> and rolled the wings level before impact. He needed another 200 feet or so to
> effect a total recovery.
Could u go into more detail on this? it sounds *most* interesting,
something i've not heard of b4.
...Nick.
--
Nick Challoner (Online Sales) Home: ni...@ladyland.demon.co.uk
Work: ni...@compman.demon.co.uk http://www.easynet.co.uk/compman.htm
"I've seen slavery and I've seen Jimi Hendrix play, that just about
covers it all" - Nora Rose, Grandmother of Jimi Hendrix.
Kevin Au
Nick Challoner <ni...@ladyland.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>war...@sundial.net (J.J. Litchford) wrote:
>
>> I have read this and similar postings from eyewitnesses and seen the short
>> video clip of the last 5-10 seconds of the flight. For what it's worth, the
>> crash appeared to be caused by anaccellerated stall (tight turn, decaying
>> airspeed, pitch down, incipient autorotation or spin, etc.) The clincher for
>> me was that the pilot clearly initiated the proper recovery technique. On the
>> video, the pilot stopped the autorotation, decreased alpha or angle of attack,
>> and rolled the wings level before impact. He needed another 200 feet or so to
>> effect a total recovery.
>
>Could u go into more detail on this? it sounds *most* interesting,
>something i've not heard of b4.
>
>...Nick.
>
An aircraft stalls because the relative wind over the chord line exceeds
the critical angle of attack. This can occur at any speed. An
accelerated stall at high speed can occur when an aircraft is pitched
back too rapidly so that the direction of flight and the chord line
diverge so quickly that the stalling AOA is exceeded.
In the case of the Nimrod crash, it would seem that the tight turn was
the cause of an accelerated stall. When an aircraft is banked steeply, a
much greater amount of lift is required to maintain level flight. This
often leads to accelerated stalls because of the amount of back pressure
that is pulled on the stick in these manouvers.
To recover, the basic technique is to level the wings with rudder, lower
the nose to break the stall, then recover back to a level attitude.
From what I saw of the crash footage and the description of the accident
posted here, it seems that an accelerated stall was achieved during a
turning manouvering at an altitude insufficient for recovery. The clips
I saw only showed the Nimrod in a wings level attitude flying smack into
the water, with all four engines appearing to be putting out smoke. How
the plane ended up in that situation is probably most easily explained by
an accelerated manouver stall.
jo...@incontext.ca
I was operating the PA for the air show. I did not see the lead up to the
crash, as I was looking at my equipment. I did look up just before it hit.
If I get any official information I will pass it on, but I am not part of the
security or safety aspects of the show and will have to get my info from the
news.
John Turner
jo...@incontext.ca
Kristan Roberge
>
> I attended the Toronto Airshow today, and sadly the British Nimrod
> crashed into Lake Ontario. No crew had been recovered by the time I
> left.
>
> attack of submaries. It's powered by four turbofan engines and looks
> as though it would have the handling agility of a DC-10. In any event,
>
Pretty close to that. The Nimrod's are an evolution of the DeHavilland
Comet. the world's first Jet Airliner (beat everyone else to the market
by about 6 years).
Kristan Roberge
> possible that this is a replay of the B-52 crash some time ago where
> the pilot pushed the plan out of its' flight envelope?
>
Actually this particular plane and crew had been performing the same
maneuvers at air-shows around the world all year. Course given the
historical problems with the airframe (Nimrod's are an evolution
of the DH Comet - first jet airliner - which early on suffered a
couple crashes from metal-fatigue) it could have been airframe
fatigue, or possibly an engine failure (there's no shortage of birds
around the waterfront in toronto).
That B-52 crew were just plain stupid.
BB
>Actually this particular plane and crew had been performing the same
>maneuvers at air-shows around the world all year. Course given the
>historical problems with the airframe (Nimrod's are an evolution
>of the DH Comet - first jet airliner - which early on suffered a
>couple crashes from metal-fatigue) it could have been airframe
>fatigue, or possibly an engine failure (there's no shortage of birds
>around the waterfront in toronto).
Those early Comet crashes were a consequence of window design, and are
certainly unrelated to the recent Nimrod crash. The original windows on
the Comet were square resulting in stress concentration (is this the
right terminology? My appologies to engineers) at the corners which in
turn lead to the appearance of cracks in the skin, with catastrophic
results. Later versions of the Comet, which I flew on many years ago,
had round windows and a decent safety record.
BB
Matt Clonfero
> The Nimrod is a maritime recon platform used in the detection and
> attack of submaries. It's powered by four turbofan engines and looks
> as though it would have the handling agility of a DC-10. In any event,
> it seemed to me, although I'm no expert, the pilot was really putting
> the plane through it's paces, with hard breaking turns during which
> the wings would be almost purely vertical at the 12 and 6 o'clock
> positions. I was astounded at these manouevers, which took place at
> very low altitude (about 500').
The Nimrod MR.2 (the version that crashed) is maritime recon aircraft.
As well as ASW, they perform surface search duties with the Searchwater
ISAR radar. They were indeed derrived from airliners - the DH Comet 4C.
Since I don't think the Nimrod would be operating anyway near max gross
weight for the airframe, the manoeuvres you describe are perfectly within
it's capabilities - I've seen it myself.
(For your information, the other version of the Nimrod is the R.1, an
ELINT aircraft).
Someone mentioned ejection - I'm not sure that the rear crew (i.e. the
mission crew, not the flight crew) have ejection seats? Anyone from
Kinloss able to comment. Also, the Comet was far from a wide bodied jet,
and room inside the Nimrod is limited.
Finally, I'd just like to say thanks on behalf of the people over here to
everyone who has expressed their condolances.
Per Ardua Ad Astra
Matt.
--
===============================================================================
Matt Clonfero (ma...@aetherem.demon.co.uk) | To err is human,
My employer & I have a deal - they don't | To forgive is not Air Force Policy.
speak for me, and I don't speak for them. | -- Anon, ETPS
Stefan Mochnacki
Kevin Au <k...@haas.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>In article <8102537...@ladyland.demon.co.uk>,
>Nick Challoner <ni...@ladyland.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In the case of the Nimrod crash, it would seem that the tight turn was
>the cause of an accelerated stall. When an aircraft is banked steeply, a
>much greater amount of lift is required to maintain level flight. This
>often leads to accelerated stalls because of the amount of back pressure
>that is pulled on the stick in these manouvers.
>
I am a sailor living aboard at Ontario Place. I saw the crash from my boat at
the Ontario Place Marina. I am an experienced RC model glider flier.
I think Nick is right, but there is another factor in the equation. Humber
Bay has rather fickle, gusty winds, perhaps partly due to curved shorelines
and the Toronto Islands. On Saturday, the wind was blowing from the South
at ground level. The Nimrod was climbing to the south, then turning 180 degrees
to come back for its final pass (and expected spectacular wing-over: I thought
that last year he exceeded 90 degrees). My surmise is that he started the turn
with too little speed, and as he turned away from the wind (perhaps 20 knots in
a gust) he lost 40 knots of airspeed, given the tightness of the turn and the
weight of the plane. Add to that the acceleration of the turn, and one can
see how he lost it. In other words, the kind of turn which has done in
countless hang-glider pilots, a turn away from the wind, compounded with
Nick's acceleration.
>To recover, the basic technique is to level the wings with rudder, lower
>the nose to break the stall, then recover back to a level attitude.
>
In addition to the actual event, I have since seen many of the videos broadcast
by various stations. The pilot certainly was trying very hard, and got the wings
level before impact. However, he was still going down rapidly; some of the
videos, from the side, show an angle of attack higher than the actual
path of the plane (so it sort of pancaked in, except the nose was still pointed
below horizontal).
>From what I saw of the crash footage and the description of the accident
>posted here, it seems that an accelerated stall was achieved during a
>turning manouvering at an altitude insufficient for recovery. The clips
>I saw only showed the Nimrod in a wings level attitude flying smack into
>the water, with all four engines appearing to be putting out smoke. How
>the plane ended up in that situation is probably most easily explained by
>an accelerated manouver stall.
>
With the additional wind factor thrown in ... Note that these gusts in Humber
Bay can last several minutes and are quite localized. I presume that at 500
feet or whatever similar wind behaviour can occur.
Stefan Mochnacki
--
Stefan W. Mochnacki ste...@centaur.astro.utoronto.ca "Somewhere"
* If you feed the fish, please don't complain! *
==============At Ontario Place, 1 May - Thanksgiving===================
Jared Nedzel
>Those early Comet crashes were a consequence of window design, and are
>certainly unrelated to the recent Nimrod crash. The original windows on
>the Comet were square resulting in stress concentration (is this the
>right terminology?
Yup.
>My appologies to engineers) at the corners which in
>turn lead to the appearance of cracks in the skin, with catastrophic
>results. Later versions of the Comet, which I flew on many years ago,
>had round windows and a decent safety record.
As best as I can remember from my structural engineering days...
The stress concentration affect is a function of the inverse of the radius
of the corner of the hole. A true square thus has 0 radius at the corners,
and therefore has a huge stress concentration.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Nedzel jne...@netcom.com
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean there isn't someone out to get me
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Challoner
Kevin...thanx for the explanation - i follow it, and i must say it
does seem to be the most likely cause.
> with all four engines appearing to be putting out smoke.
That's RR Speys with the throttles open alright...
...Nick.
--
Nick Challoner (Online Sales) Home: ni...@ladyland.demon.co.uk
Work: ni...@compman.demon.co.uk http://www.easynet.co.uk/compman.htm
"I've seen slavery and I've seen Jimi Hendrix perform, that just about
covers it all" - Nora Rose Moore, Grandmother of Jimi Hendrix.
Nick Challoner
> The Nimrod MR.2
Nimrod MR2P to be extremely pedantic - they are all now fitted with
the AAR probes the P refers to. They all have the extra vertical fins
on the tailplanes too to add regain the slight stability problems the
probes produce in certain flight regimes (high alpha if i remember
correctly).
> Someone mentioned ejection
No ejections seats on a Nimrod - remember it's airliner heritage, i
think a major structural re-design would have been required for
hatches etc.
Jeremy Robinson
jne...@netcom.com (Jared Nedzel) wrote:
>In article <42i8jt$8...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca> BB <bbu...@acs.ucalgary.ca>
writes:
>>Those early Comet crashes were a consequence of window design, and are
>>certainly unrelated to the recent Nimrod crash. The original windows on
>>the Comet were square resulting in stress concentration (is this the
>>right terminology?
>
>Yup.
>
>>My appologies to engineers) at the corners which in
>>turn lead to the appearance of cracks in the skin, with catastrophic
>>results. Later versions of the Comet, which I flew on many years ago,
>>had round windows and a decent safety record.
>
>As best as I can remember from my structural engineering days...
>The stress concentration affect is a function of the inverse of the radius
>of the corner of the hole. A true square thus has 0 radius at the corners,
>and therefore has a huge stress concentration.
>
F.A.A.Crane, Butterworths 1989. My comments are indicated by-JR
"The failure of the two deHavilland Comets which crashed early in 1954 was
shown to be caused by low cycle fatigue. A crack growing outwards (by
fatigue-JR) from a stress concentration caused by a bolt hole near the corner
of a window caused the passengers cabin to explode( the stress concentration
caused by a circular hole in an infinite plate is 3-JR). Because the fracture
toughness of the alloy used in the Comet (which would have been a Al-Cu-Mg-Mn
alloy-JR) was low, the critical crack length length at failure was only a few
milimeters. The likelihood of failure should have been revealed in testing in
the development stage when a prototype cabin was inflated cyclically between
zero and service pressure for 18,000 cycles before failure. Unfortunately the
same cabin had been previously been pressurised about 30 times to pressures
approaching double the crushing pressure and this had artificially raised the
fatigue strength of the material (by plastically deforming (aka work
hardening) material located at stress concentrations-JR). When, after the
catastrophes had occurred, testing was repeated under directly valid
conditions failure occurred after only 1830 cycles."
You will be relieved to hear that cabin critical crack sizes are now of the
order of 2 metres so they should be found before cabins explode, but not
always :)
Jeremy Robinson
Paul Tomblin
> BB (bbu...@acs.ucalgary.ca) wrote:
> : Those early Comet crashes were a consequence of window design, and are
> AFAIK, the first Comet crashes were due to the construction of the
> observation bubble on top of the aircraft. Cracks starting there eventually
> led to the tearing open in explosive decompression.
> This bubble was not present on later versions of the Comet.
You remember incorrectly. The crashes were directly attributable to the
corners of the windows. deHavilland built a large water tank big enough for
the entire fuselage so that they could test the aircraft under pressure
cycles.
I don't remember any observation bubble on any mark of the Comet.
--
Paul Tomblin, Contract Programmer.
I don't speak for Kodak, they don't speak for me.
(Email that is not work related should go to: ptom...@canoe.com)
"You are in a twisty maze of Motif Widget resources, all inconsistent."
Johan Eertink
: Those early Comet crashes were a consequence of window design, and are
AFAIK, the first Comet crashes were due to the construction of the
observation bubble on top of the aircraft. Cracks starting there eventually
led to the tearing open in explosive decompression.
This bubble was not present on later versions of the Comet.
--
|
Johan Eertink | eer...@nlr.nl
|
(0)
/ . \
x-------------'`___'`-------------x
x O `(___)' O x
/ 8 \
(These are personal opinions, they do not represent NLR's view)
DAVID MILLS
-> gross weight for the airframe, the manoeuvres you describe are
-> perfectly within it's capabilities - I've seen it myself.
In Wednesday's papers, reports of an interview with CHCH TV, days
before the crash, with the pilot of the Nimrod:
He would "...push the jet close to its limits...
...both in speed and stall and C of G limits - and as well, the
G-limit, the actual stress on the airframe".
" The highlight of the show is the final pull-up. It's a 2-G pull-up
and we go as vertical as we can and we turn the airplane as far
upside-down as we dare".
"...manoeuvres that aren't really typical of the normal job we do".
I guess not.
To me, it appeared to be a case of too low, too slow, too tight a turn.
Re. posts on the helicopters. The smaller one is a French-built Dolphin
or Dauphin which had earlier taken part in the show. It's not Bandage 1,
the ambulance helicopter, which is a Sikorsky 76.
Rolf Kappe
Nick Challoner <ni...@ladyland.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>tom...@ekfido.kodak.com (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>
>> You remember incorrectly. The crashes were directly attributable to the
>> corners of the windows. deHavilland built a large water tank big enough for
>> the entire fuselage so that they could test the aircraft under pressure
>> cycles.
The crash of G-ALYP was due to structural failure at the location of
the automatic direction finding antenna. This was a square (of course)
carbon fiber "window" on the top of the aircraft. G-ALYU, the aircraft
tested in the tank, failed at one of the passenger windows.
Not enough wreckage was recovered from G-ALYY to determine
where it failed, although
autopsies indicated the effects of passengers being blown about the
cabin due to explosive decompression, the cause is assumed to be the
same. The ADF "window" was ommited on later models of Comet, in
addition to making the passenger windows oval.
>
>The water tank was at RAE Farnborough (for those not aware (and i'm
>sure you are aware, Paul), i haven't mis-typed "RAF", RAE stood at
>that time for Royal Aircraft Establishment), so i guess the RAE built
>it, or perhaps more accurately the AAIB (Air Accident Investigation
>Branch) - can anyone confirm?
Stewart, in _Air Disasters_ says workon and in the tank was
directly supervised by Arnold Hall, director of RAE. He was
knighted for his effort (but those Brits seem to do that an awful lot :-) )
--Rolf
Donny Chan
KM>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
KM>Subject: Re: British Nimrod Crashed at Toronto Airshow
KM>Date: 5 Sep 1995 17:27:02 GMT
KM>Organization: Magi Data Consulting
KM>lo...@idirect.com (Dan Logan) wrote:
> I attended the Toronto Airshow today, and sadly the British Nimrod
> crashed into Lake Ontario. No crew had been recovered by the time I
> left.
>
> The Nimrod is a maritime recon platform used in the detection and
> attack of submaries. It's powered by four turbofan engines and looks
> as though it would have the handling agility of a DC-10. In any event,
KM>Pretty close to that. The Nimrod's are an evolution of the DeHavilland
KM>Comet. the world's first Jet Airliner (beat everyone else to the market
KM>by about 6 years).
Wasn't the Avro Jetliner the first civilian jet airliner? OK, maybe
the DeH Comet was the first jet airliner to enter service?
---
* DeLuxe2 1.21 #6922 * Phantasmagoria BBS, Toronto, Ontario, 416-231-9392
Nick Challoner
> The crash of G-ALYP was due to structural failure at the location of
> the automatic direction finding antenna. This was a square (of course)
> carbon fiber "window" on the top of the aircraft.
That's real interesting - i always thought all the crashes were due to
failures around the cabin windows. Just one question though: i
understood carbon fibre (not a typo - i'm English ;-) was not
developed until the 1960's - was the ADF window made of something
else, or an early development of carbon fibre?
Dave Elliott
david...@westonia.com says...
Is a fuller text of the interview with thw pilot avialable?
Stephen Jaffe
accident, the Toronto Sun had the final moments of the sequence on the
front page of the paper. The turn looks just a little steep, but just
before impact, there are Two clean exhaust trails from the left pair
of engines, indication of a clean engine and airflow. The right pair
however, has a very strange line, away from the aircraft and about
half of what it should be. The engine looks as if the outboard engine
on the Nimrod had stalled or been interupted (Seagull? They were
right over the lake), maybe giving a clue as to the nature of the
crash. I was at the show, and saw the crash. It was just too damn fast.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Jaffe
A.K.A.: Pheonix
Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
Email address: sja...@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------