Happily not fatal
The replica Avro Triplane built for the Magnificent Men film in 1965 crashed yesterday or at least landed rather unconventionally off the field. Shuttleworth is closed today.
youtu.be/VgzfS1BuVZY?si=xvJ11dnYAufAEXNc
aviationnews.eu/news/2026/05/avro-triplane-crashes-during-shuttleworth-wings-wheels-air-show/
I have watched the "Edwardians" flying there several times always heart in mouth. The top speed of this one is under 50 mph. Not clear from the video what caused it but pilot lived to tell the tale and is reportedly not badly injured.
Shuttleworth has not made a statement yet beyond saying the Trust has a "developing situation".
I have tickets for the July air show, I wonder if there will be any fallout from this.
|
Such a shame, seen that fly a few times, those edwardians need perfect conditions, to my eyes it got caught in a down draft?
I was also planning on going in July, such a wonderful collection, we even attended during covid when they gave everyone a designated square space in which to park and spectate, worked extremely well.
|
Watching again, it looks from the elevator that he's at full backstick approaching the trees, I think he'd lost it at that point.
The evening in July is the only one I'll go to. You face the runway with the lowish sun behind you and the aircraft look fantastic, unlike the silhouettes that are more usual at air shows.
There has been a statement:
"Yesterday, 30.05.26 an incident took place at the south end of the airfield. This was part of the Wings and Wheels Air Show and involved one of our aircraft and one pilot.
The initial response to this incident has now ended. The pilot in question has been discharged from medical care and returned home in good spirits.
Due to the operational logistics involved in resetting the site, Shuttleworth will remain closed today, 31.05.2026, reopening at 10:00 tomorrow, 01.06.2026.
We are working hard to update our website with regular verified information at shuttleworth.org and appreciate your patience as we work to offer more information in due course"
www.shuttleworth.org/discover/collection/aircraft/avro-triplane-iv-replica
|
|
Looks as though it stalled. Doesn't leave much room for pilot error when the top speed is not much more than the stall speed. I remember my father saying that in a strongish wind some of these early planes could take off (into the wind of course) and immediately fly backwards! On no account should you attempt to change direction until a good height is gained. I wonder if this pilot knew this? It doesn't look like it.
|
Experienced commercial pilot IIRC so should be well aware of the dangers of turns near the ground.
I doubt if there was much wind, they only fly the old stuff when the wind is maybe 5mph or less. I didn't see a wing dip but a stall seems like a plausible explanation. Reaction to an incipient stall should be pitch down not pitch up but presumably he was trying to clear the trees.
I wonder if there was a loss of power after take off. Default response would be to land ahead rather than attempt a 180.
The pilot is ok so hopefully we will find out.
|
>> Experienced commercial pilot IIRC so should be well aware of the dangers of turns near
>> the ground.
A pilot of those 'Edwardians' once stated: you don't fly them higher than you'd like to fall.
|
>> Experienced commercial pilot IIRC so should be well aware of the dangers of turns near the ground. <<
Perhaps those Union Jacks attached to the wings added just too much drag ?
|
>> >> Experienced commercial pilot IIRC so should be well aware of the dangers of turns
>> near the ground. <<
>>
>> Perhaps those Union Jacks attached to the wings added just too much drag ?
Yes, I did a double take at those, aerodynamically helpful they aint in all sorts of ways.
|
>> I doubt if there was much wind, they only fly the old stuff when the
>> wind is maybe 5mph or less.
I have just looked at the weather for Sat 30th in Beds. True there was not much wind, but what there was was from the north, backing from 12 mid day to from the north west by 6pm. The Old Warden runway is 02/200. It therefore looks as though it was taking off with the wind rather than into it, which I thought would not be very sensible, especially as wind speed is higher the higher you go. It looks as though it then turned towards the south east, thus compounding the problem if it was later in the afternoon.
|
Well...I can't speak from practical experience and maybe this is a bit idealised but once the aircraft is airborne and established in flight, it should not make any difference whether it turns from upwind to downwind or vice versa. It is living in and moving with the mass of air around it.
Ground speed and any optical illusions that are caused by that is another matter. As is wind shear. It seems unlikely that it was gusty because they wouldn't fly it in gusty weather but it's possible.
It looks as if he took off from the Hill Lane end i.e. towards the SW so he would have had a bit of tailwind but mostly a right>left crosswind. He appears to turn left, then right. I gather the trees he crashed into were at the south end of the field, probably to the left of runway 20.
An AI search brings this up:
"Initial Technical Factors
Loss of Power: Preliminary indications suggest the aircraft suspectedly lost power shortly after taking off from Runway 20.
Control and Airflow: Witnesses and early aviation analysis indicate the lightweight Edwardian replica became heavily uncoordinated during its initial climb. Airflow disruptions, potentially compounded by crosswinds, resulted in a severe loss of lift and a high-drag aerodynamic stall before it settled into the treeline."
|
>> Well...I can't speak from practical experience and maybe this is a bit idealised but once
>> the aircraft is airborne and established in flight, it should not make any difference whether
>> it turns from upwind to downwind or vice versa. It is living in and moving
>> with the mass of air around it.
I'm probably missing your point but surely moving from into wind to tailwind has the potential to significantly affect airspeed.
|
The point is the aircraft once established in flight does not know whether it has a headwind or a tailwind or a crosswind, as long as it is a steady wind (that is the idealised part).
Have you ever been up in a hot air balloon (which I have)? OK they don't use them when there's more than about 6mph wind but once you're up, there is no wind you can feel. Even though you might be moving over the ground quite quickly, as you might well be higher up.
You take an interest in flying I know and you have probably watched planes doing crosswind landings. The crosswind has no effect on the aircraft aerodynamically until they want to land with the aircraft pointing down the runway.
All that happens up that point is that the heading and the track are different because of the leeway.
|
>>The point is the aircraft once established in flight does not know whether it has a headwind or a tailwind or a crosswind, as long as it is a steady wind (that is the idealised part)
Apparently even some pilots don't believe this!
planeandpilotmag.com/downwind-turn/
|
>> >>The point is the aircraft once established in flight does not know whether it has
>> a headwind or a tailwind or a crosswind, as long as it is a steady
>> wind (that is the idealised part)
>>
>> planeandpilotmag.com/downwind-turn/
>>
True, but 'once established in flight' usually means a speed well in excess of the stall speed. This article deals with a fairly powerful modern plane, not a fragile contraption of paper and string capable of little more speed than its stall speed. I do have practical experience (although my PPL expired long ago) and remember the effects of turning into and away from wind in a not very powerful small plane doing circuits.....also the effect of wind shear coming into land.
|
I am not a pilot but I think you'd need to be 'established in flight' before embarking on a turn regardless, not to mention a bit more height especially on that thing.
I did say "idealised". The aircraft although very light has momentum so is not a leaf blowing in the wind, and an instantaneous turn downwind from just above stall speed, to take the absurd case, would clearly be risky, even more so without height to recover.
I will be interested in the accident report assuming there is one.
|
>> Looks as though it stalled. Doesn't leave much room for pilot error when the top
>> speed is not much more than the stall speed. I remember my father saying that
>> in a strongish wind some of these early planes could take off (into the wind
>> of course) and immediately fly backwards!
I've seen a Fiesler Storch, WW2 era German Comms etc machine, do that at a display.
|
|
Saw a picture of the crash scene this morning ( popped up on Facebook) of the crash site, aircraft was fairly well smashed to bits up the top of a tall tree.
|
|
Should these things really be flying ? They seem pretty unsafe. Perhaps best confined to a museum
|
>> Should these things really be flying ? They seem pretty unsafe. Perhaps best confined to
>> a museum
Sure there's the occasional accident but they're not exactly falling from the sky like rain are they.
|
>> >> Should these things really be flying ? They seem pretty unsafe. Perhaps best confined
>> to
>> >> a museum
>>
>> Sure there's the occasional accident but they're not exactly falling from the sky like rain
>> are they.
They are in a museum, a working museum.
One reason they're not falling from the sky like rain, is perhaps because there's so few of them, in many cases only one!
A reason there's so few of them could be because all the others of their type have crashed?
|
Duplicate deleted.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 8 Jun 26 at 21:21
|
>> Should these things really be flying ? They seem pretty unsafe. Perhaps best confined to
>> a museum
You mean like putting everyone over a certain age in an old folk's home?
|
|
The chairman of my employers keeps a century-old 'plane at Old Warden. He described the accident as the triplane "settling" into the trees. The pilot's a little bruised but otherwise alright.
|
Crash at Old Warden - Paul 1963
