Lightning Crash at Duxford

[Styrne]

hoof was an excellent pilot and a lovely guy to know RIP buddy

[8literbeater]

@MrCommonlane Rest In Peace, English language.

[MrCommonlane]

i think he qwould of been ok but i think the prop hit the ground causing it to hit but say if it was a turbind powerd plane it would of pancaked into the ground

[CaSknotism]

Just thought I would point out that it was a malfunction in the cockpit that led to the second roll (it wasn't intentional the first one had been preformed at many shows before hand) .

[andgate2000]

one roll too many.....RIP

[vidribbin]

You see the p-51 mustang at 1:35, that crashed at duxford aswell 10th of jury 2011

[BlackWidowZ93]

@vidribbin Big Beautiful doll :(

[TheSmosher1]

Just like the guy said on battle of britain if you do another victory roll like that youl be spread out all over the field ... Never again click !

[terryjohn]

@TheSmosher1 too true..but these never understand they fly old planes..like then..Sad.

[check6ii]

If he had the chance to do it again he would have NOT attempted that 2nd roll. Insufficient altitude with no room for recovery. Shame

[TRACINIobsessor]

This crash was my grandads friend, he was performing a manover, he had performed many times before and because of a problem that should of been fixed before take he crashed, the pilot was a ww2 professional spitfire pilot and was also highly trained in air combat manovers,

[KimmurielBaenre]

"control wire snapped" ....I dont want to sound like a total ass here but that sounds more like people dont want to say the guy screwed up and got himself killed. From the video it seems he was just way too low for those rolls.

[FiveCentsPlease]

@KimmurielBaenre

I believe the official inquiry concluded something jammed in the controls, such as the pilot's knee board (for notes.) All I will add is that AAF pilots were told to NOT roll the P-38 at low altitude because of the sink rate and those wartime recommendations were not being followed here.

[CJWULF777]

Just look at how SLOWLY this plane rolls in relation to how much altitude its losing while rolling. A sad loss for all. ALTITUDE= LIFE!

[johnm15141]

pilot error

[MysticTokhes]

this man gave his last seconds of life trying to keep others from being injured. he knew he was going down and was not likely to survive. this act was an honorable one.

[MysticTokhes]

he lost elevator control is what it looks like to me. he couldn't nose up while inverted. it is unfortunate for the pilot that that aircraft carries a lot of inertia through rolls, he could not pause his only hope was to kick full throw into the ailerons and complete the second roll quickly. which he did but it was too late... I looked at it frame by frame and there was nothing the pilot could do. he was too low for accepted bailout procedure. you can see him kicking the rudders to stay on path

[charlieiscool1000]

its a damn shame very dangrous mnovers there

[mattbiker78]

Michael "Hoof" Proudfoot was a fantastic pilot, I met him personally a few times and even had the privilige to fly with him on one occasion. there was a malfunction and that's what caused the fatal crash at Duxford that day, a tragic loss of a plane and a flying gentleman, neither of which can be replaced. rest in peace Hoof

[timber733]

Proved to be a fatal mistake making the second roll in such quick time after the first, just didnt look clean and balanced from the start, a pause to orientate and stabilise himself and the aircraft before the follow up roll may have saved the day.....assuming this was not a mechanical related failure of course.

[7travelman]

Pure pilot error, no room for mistakes at this altitude. If you watch it over closely you'll see he pulls back on the yoke before completing the last roll, this in fact noses the plane down a bit. Just enough that he can not recover.

[tlarcs]

Sometime ago I met a typical leathery old US flying veteran with experience of just about anything you can think of. He said the Lightning was known for losing height during manoeuvres and German WW II pilots would deliberately lure P38s close to the ground if they were being chased. If they followed they would often end in the ground. I've seen this plane fly. Why did it have to flown like a Pitts Special? A few nice climbs and turns are all I need to see.

[squadman33]

LOOKS like one too many rolls too close to the ground. He lost altitude with every roll........poor guy.

[knavargh3]

well its basicly used for high gravity turns UPWARD AND FLYING DOWN A BIT YOU'RE FUCKED beacuse it is not like right blow through a peice of paper you feel two directions of wind it wont respind at a certan speed

[jxdatgmxnet]

Watching the video, I feel unconfortable with the fact that, when the left wing hits the ground the airframe is still rolling, no sign of any attemp to stabilize. Is this meaning that the ailerons were no longer responding? Is it possible that an electric malfunction of the activators occurs when inverted or during a relative high G performance?

[MysticTokhes]

@jxdatgmxnet 17-19k is a lot of weight to throw around its almost like asking a carrier to do a u turn while under way. he was trying to save his tail and the lives on the ground. moments before impact you can see him kicking the rudder a lot to try and maintain course as the plan fell. and the p-38 predates the idea of fly by wire so that's a no on electronic actuators also aileron rolls are low G manuvers.

[kuba101cz]

This happens when youre doing from yourself a awesome guy. Damn. I love WW2 Wepons,Vehicles and etc.

[timpatjoe]

ya shouldnt be doing loops in ww2 aircraft respect them

[RNSAmy]

You should get a clue before opining on something which you obviously know nothing about. He was not doing loops. He was doing aileron rolls.

Pure pilot error. Waste of a lovely piece of history.

[timpatjoe]

@RNSAmy ...hym ok but yes what a waste of a fine air craft

[ryanspeed]

Agreed timpatjoe!!

Vintage birds like this should be flown straight and level for all to gaze at and admire or for photo ops only. No loop the loops or any of that barrel roll crap!!!

[Twister051]

Sorry, but nothing but pure stupidity killed this guy. One aileron roll was OK but going for a second one was asanine and he paid for it with his life. Watch the clip. On the second roll, when he was upside down, you can see the nose come down noticeably. When you're upside down like this, to not lose altitude, you actually have to push FORWARD slightly on the stick / yoke.

[bugaiho]

Do not jump to conclusions, You weren't in the cockpit.

I was in the Navy, carrier pilot, accident investigator..been flying for 30 years.

There are so many possible causal factors, you would be surprised to know the real answers sometimes are not as apparent as what you are seeing on video.

[sbchelldiver]

The P 38 was a pretty tricky aeroplane to fly, & took the life of many a good fliers in its time, indeed when the War ended they were almost inmediately retired from service & I believe their postwar use was discouraged after a Bolivian AF pilot collided a P38 his government intended to buy, against a taking off airliner on Wash National in 1947, killing nearly 50 ppl...A midair, it was the worst air disaster at the time...

[davetileguy]

WTF!!! WHY?? why show off in a one of a kind airplane? keep it simple stupid! just do a flyby that plane could have been around for another 100 years for people to look at,but sombody's ego got in the way,another flyboy!

[cnnw3929]

Indeed, why show off in a one of a kind airplane? It was a very STUPID decision on the part of the pilot to do those rolls like he was doing. And as a result, another flyboy was removed from the gene pool. One can't help but feel sorry for the poor chap's family.

[jdrepiv]

Fair play to the fire service. straight out. aircraft doused very quick

[cooltoons247]

I was at the Duxford 2009 september airshow.

This video is shocking.

Flingwinggolfer is right. It was the second roll that got him. If he'd only done one he would've been fine.

R.I.P Michael Proudfoot

[TheDsaber]

I was at that airshow too, I was seven at the time and remember nothing else from the day apart from the lightning disintegrating into flames in front of me and his friends flying a missing man flypast after the crash.

RIP Michael

[vnck25]

If the late pilot was a very very experienced, careful and a professional fellow why the hell did he do those rolls very close to the ground?

[NVanWendy]

Good question!, vnck25! I've been to the local airshow (Abbotsford, BC) and seen warbirds in flight, but they didn't throw them around like it was 1945. These planes are old and rare, and there are too many videos on YT of precious lives and irreplaceable aircraft turning into fireballs during stunt routines.

I totally disagree with the "let's show folks what this baby can do" attitude and think airshows should ban stunting in historic planes.

[pramboy09]

Disagree,alot of these warbirds flying have been rebuilt from the wheels up and have very little flying hours on their airframes.I can see your point but even flying simple manoervres can also cause disaster if there is equipment failure.But for me i have seen low passes from spitfire,P-40, seafury, cosair and for me seeing them like that is priceless to me. If every warbird just did a straight line a long way from anybody noone will turn up.You can go to museums and see them static if you wish.

[NVanWendy]

Hmm. Can't find my comment that you're responding to!

Anyway, there's a line between making low level passes and doing loops and stunts. And if the airframe is new, that's called a replica, not a restoration! I've seen some of the most appalling wrecks hauled out of jungles and swamps and put back in the air - wonderful work, but not something you want to throw around at a show. I'm with davetileguy a few comments below.

[pramboy09]

I know the difference between a replica and a resortation, but the restorations are so good and they replace so much that they are pretty much new when they get in the air. I think your missing the point, the reason so many people put their time, effort and money into these projects is to see them flying again that is their drive.

[pramboy09]

What i should have also done is mentioned the difference between rebuilds and restorations. Rebuild are just that, finding engines and parts from other aircraft and if neccessary rebuilding some parts from scratch. Most restorations are in muesums because most of the aircraft is original and not suited to flying Many that are flying have a set amount of hours they will fly before going to a museum.

[pramboy09]

could have been equipment failure, can't do much about that.

[RobertTheDodger654]

In what year was this video made originally?

[hiergehts]

That P-38 crash occured on 14 July, 1996

[idoskillandpk]

i was there :O!

[tLlXenonFire]

was it loud?

[Pyromaster365]

I almost cried at the site of that gorgeous plane hitting the ground

[DirkSchooner]

Really more bothered about the pilot. It looks like he took out quite a few more planes on the ground also.

[Decoded69]

what about the piolet?

[lordofbore]

@Decoded69 the pilot ,was sadly killed

[matoy77]

@Decoded69 No ejector seats in a plane like that. They are beautiful but really old

[FetidToecheese]

@Decoded69 Did you even watch the video?

[killingamps]

@Pyromaster365 Yeah, it's a damned shame, and I bet he was a nice guy flying that plane, too!

[217zadok]

was that the p38 glacier girl..........?

[taterfamine]

no.

[JamieRees]

No, this was the P-38 that crashed at Duxford during Flying Legends 1996

[AdrianNtart]

no hardware problem! if you look closely you see both ailerons in opposite directions! i think he got carried away too much...

[keefer2111]

It's enough to make you sick...

RIP Hoof.

[andgate2000]

They are hard to fly !!!! The people that used to fly them are now to old or dead.

[maciejlondyn]

when was this?

[AreaQNH870]

Low level "acrobatics"?

its AERObatics the last time I checked

[jetaddicted]

@AreaQNH870 actually, acrobatics is the genuine word, aerobatics being an invention kept because "it sounds cool".

just like "thru" instead of "through"

you want to check the greco-latin origin of the word acrobat

lexically, an aerobat is a flying mouse :)

[ronnysoeberg]

I don't even think there was a fault of the plane. The plane was just not supposed to do those sort of maneuvres. Twin engine planes don't do all that well with rolls because the drag over the wings is sort of peculiar. Anyone with an eye for physics should know that that is a risky move.

Damn shame, both the loss of life and the loss of a gorgeous airplane :(

[pete2778]

There was, the aileron boosters failed. The double roll that the pilot intended had been practised and performed completely safely numerous times and was far less risky than certain manouvres carried out by the US based P38 "White Lightnin'" (which used to regularly be rolled against the dead engine at low altitude by it's pilot, "Lefty" Gardner).

Twin engined aircraft often don't roll well because of the inertia of the outboard engines, it's got nothing to do with 'drag over the wings'.

[thevegetarian]

R.I.P Hoof.

[klesmer]

Thou shall maintaine thine airspeed lest the ground rise up and smite thee. Even the best of them make that mistake, R.I.P. Proudfoot.

[AC4862]

I was at this very airshow in July 1996, the plane hit the ground right opposite to where I was standing. R.I.P. Michael "Hoof" Proudfoot.

[Owlesque1]

Such a shame, end of pilot and wonderful rare plane. Inevitably, hardware is more likely to fail on old warbirds, like vintage cars. But cars don't fly. High stress manouvres reveal weaknesses in engines, airframes, control systems. Unless all parts are restored to new or better, why not fly these treasures more gently, especially when this near the ground? Even when showing off, Pilot knew this, but enjoying the moment pushed too hard and left no margin for error (whether pilot or hardware).

[2206411411]

Keeping the old warbirds flying is important - planes have a nasty habit of deteriorating in museums and are not always maintained to the same standard as those actually flown. Low-level stunts aren't so necessary, although I suspect there are many people who have become pilots because they were thrilled by such stunts. Maybe if they built replicas specifically for that...? I don't know what would work best, but I agree that both pilots and original planes are far too rare to risk.

[noordwinter]

Not really any need for all the turns like that especially at such a low level..

[nightreaper4]

only one was planned which was perfectly fine the second wasnt. Apparently from what i read the sidebourd of the cockpit collapsed ont the joystick and therefore made him crash and it WAS NOT THE PILOTS FAULT. oh and they should all be put in meuseams ye what a great ideathat is lets put em so it bores people and anyway lets face it who would rather watch several flying spitfires or mustangs etc then see one in a mueseam

[FlingwingGolfer]

the second roll got him. wonder if 2 rolls was planned.

[hmasmelbourne]

Oh, i thought this was the english electric lighting mach 2 jet fighter crashing, not the ww2 fighter, know a jet lighting crashing would have been a sight.

[kapitankartoon]

that really ruins my day. i guess the pilot was lost too.

sad day to fans of the P-38, sad day for the pilots family.

[integer22]

i remember this i was there with my parents and younger brother. a very surreal thing to witness... very sad. i was 8 at the time.

[mig15fan]

Another jewell lost due to nonsense silly low level acrobatics.keep clowns away from that old warriors,as pilot feel sorry about lost lives, but please!!! show some repect for old warbirds, they save free world from nazis, dont make them crash in silly airshows!

that is risky maneover even in a speciall designed airplane like extra, so,even more risky in warbird why to make no error margin maneuvers in this old jewell, must be flown in a more conservative

[tomprid3]

its called AEROBATICS (air-ro-bat-ics) < to the silly news reader not u, mig15fan.

when will people learn its not cool to do low flying manouvers like that, flypasts are fine but theres got to be a limit

[1961sd]

I agree, I always prefer to see the old birds fly rather than sit static in a museum. However, they are too rare to be risked, and it's horrible to loose a good man in addition. R.I.P.

[mig15fan]

liked your nick! just great

[derfly1]

Well Captains, an interesting discussion. Some "Proffromgview","Proff","Drs" AND Ronald McDonald will Dx. a bat for not being able to hit the ball!! Not that I know much except: I have been INSIDE a P-38,"Glacier Girl" flies WITH superchargers,I knew all flight controls for a P-51 at the age of 7 (seven)-GEE my dad was a FIGHTER PILOT!,and I have been a member of the AFA(Air Force Association) for 26 yrs! It was know as a flying coffin till Dolittle impressed squad in PO with non CRP. peace

[Bradburger]

1996

[pootubecom]

wot year was this in

[stranger590]

this video makes me want to throw up. that wonderful plane gone and that pilot, dead. what a horrible accident. another p-38, gone.

[100thbombgroup]

This is a very sad end to this p38 and the pilot.

[riflelord2]

NO why did that happen and don't blam the plane it the pilot to

[Bored2MoonsFan]

True definition of "Barbeque"

[agentolshki]

he was still low to be doing that especially when theres people possibly in the way.

[maverick50616]

was this Glacier Girl?

[rukkee22]

nope , GG didn't make it to duxford this year. It had an engine issue and returned to the states after both engines were replaced .

[BikerRussell]

They just swapped both engines? thats gotta be expensive...

[fiftycaliberfistfuck]

It looked like he was loosing altitute too fast in the roll.. but he didn't halt the roll.. making me think he lost orientation or conciousness.. or realized it was too late... he came in at too steep of a dive an angle before he started the roll I am guessing, he should of been level before starting the roll.

[proffromgview]

After looking at this crash several times, it seems to me that the plane lacked the power to perform that maneuver, since all p-38s (as far as I know) today do NOT have the supercharger. It simply did not have the airspeed

[jamieduff1981]

Erm no, even if the turbochargers aredisabled this would only have any noticeable effect on performance at altitude. At sea level it makes naff-all difference. A P38 at sealevel definately isn't underpowered...

[proffromgview]

That's NOT what the British said when we sold you Lightnings w/o the superchargers in WWII. They called them castrated Lightnings and complained about their performance at ALL altitudes. See the P-38 journal "Lightning Strikes" for various articles on this. Sorry.

[jamieduff1981]

That was more due to the lack of counter rotating props at low altitude though. The other applications of the same engine without the turbo (such as the P40) were all fine at low altitude.

Finally, the British were comparing the performance to contemporary aircraft, not complaining that it couldn't be rolled. A de Havilland Chipmunk with 145hp can be rolled...

[proffromgview]

Jamie, the P-38 ALWAYS had counter-rotating props. That was one of the design innovations that Kelly Johnson at Lockheed designed from Day One. And your comparison with the P-40 is not quite apt either, as the Lightning was MUCH heavier than the P-40 and without the supercharger, lacked the power to be the world beater it would later be.

[jamieduff1981]

Nope, the Model 332F and 332B (for French and British orders) stipulated right handed only engines to ensure commonality with the existing Alison engined P40s in use by both forces. After the fall of France the British took over the lot, and these were the "castrated Lightning" aircraft which were evaluated by the RAF. 147 later ones were delivered with handed engines to the RAF but still without turbos and these were reportedly fine at low altitude.

[jamieduff1981]

Edit - The 147 later ones went to the USAAC, not the RAF, but they were initially ordered as RAF Lightning 1s. They were designated RP-332.

[proffromgview]

I'll need a cite on that, as that is counter to all the data I have read in ALL the publications. And, what I said about the weight remains true--the Lightnings rang in at about 19K pounds, FAR heavier than the p-40, and with the greater mass and slower roll rate, making superchargers a necessaity at ANY atlitude

[jamieduff1981]

An airshow routine is never flown at anywhere near AUW. Empty weight is under 13,000lbs for a late model P-38, which is roughly twice the empty weight of a P-40 (6,300lbs ish), which has half the number of engines and thus half the power.

Do look into the early RAF and French P-38 orders. They did indeed only have right-handed engines fitted. :o)

[proffromgview]

"empty weight" is misleading to cite for the P-38, as one of its best features was its enormous payload. The J and L models were close to 19000 pounds.

[jamieduff1981]

21,500lbs MTOW for a P-38L... how is that relevant to flying a preserved aircraft at an airshow though? They're all flown with a modest fuel load, often with wartime equipment stripped out and never with ordinance for obvious reasons. Airshow weight for these aircraft is as near minimum as it gets :oS

[proffromgview]

But that was NEVER my issue. Remember, this discussion arose about weight vs. power, specifically the P-38 vs. P-40, and the whole supercharger issue. Nothing to do with any airshow! My point is that NO flying P-38s today have superchargers, and that fact impacts their power, then the discussion went to overall power at altitude, counter-rotating props, what Britain got insofar as Lightnings, etc.

[proffromgview]

And PS, without a authoratative citation, I cannot believe ANY govt would order these planes w/o counter-rotating props. Makes no sense.

[jamieduff1981]

Well that's history... there's plenty documentation around to support it.

And it was you who proclaimed the aircraft was too underpowered to carry out a roll at an airshow. I merely pointed out that at the elevation Duxford sits at and the weights the aircraft was operated at the aircraft had plenty power to execute it's display - as it had done at the hands of that same ex-RAF pilot for years.

[proffromgview]

yes, it was underpowered because it had no superchargers. Look, are you a member of Lightning Strikes, the publication of the P-38 community? I have read countless times in there, by other authoratative sources, that NO superchargers were on the British planes, and I have never heard that non-counter-rotating props planes went out--a "search on google" is not a research search, but only an inquiry without focus.

[MysticTokhes]

@proffromgview a very small number of p-38's were retrofitted with non counter rotating props because the military thought they knew better than the aircraft designer. all of them crashed due to the torque when throttling up or down or changing the pitch of the blades and it would cause an inreversable roll. basicaly an AOA stall and they would be screwed by the time they got straight...they then fixed this rather quickly and made very little mention of it.

[mustangtg]

Prof..I have to agree with Jamie on this one. I did a simple google search on the P-38 and found sources that back up his non-counter-rotating engine claim. All of the MK1's sent to england were indeed right handed engines. in fact, there is a bumper sticker that is circulating among the P-38 community which pokes fun at the Brit's decision to omit the counter-rotating props. It reads: "Real" planes have props that COUNTER ROTATE.

[MysticTokhes]

@proffromgview almost all p-38's flying today have the superchargers, but even with out them they still push 500 to 550 horsepower each.

[unknowndreamer1987]

zinnington you shoulda been in this plane yourself with that attitude, you have to be a real lowlife to disrespect the dead like that.

"stupid people owning precious aircraft"??

To hell with the craft it was renovated once it'd be rebuild as well...I hate morons who value machine over humanity.

[mrjugger]

i dont need to see these vintage aircraft doing these kind of displays to enjoy them. i prefer to see them doing what they were designed to do..doing diplays like on the film are done to impress and draw in the crowds who expect more from an airshow. it cost him he's life and destroyed other aircraft.this was pilot error in extreme...too low and an unstable aircraft at best..

[zinnington]

another example of stupid people owning precious aircraft who do damn stupid things with them. How many more times is this going to be allowed to happen.

[luuko656]

i dont think this guy was stupid...he had more fligh houres in ww2 airplanes than anyone else...

[4can1204]

when did this happen?

[JayZoop]

I bet he burnt in a fireball because the hull didn't really hit the ground that hard.

[InvisibleMagicMan]

JayZoop (2 weeks ago)

"I bet he burnt in a fireball because the hull didn't really hit the ground that hard."

He hit the ground at close to 300 mph, I'm sure the G forces put his head somewhere on the floor of the P-38's cockpit. People have been killed in much slower traffic accidents.

[MALONEY432]

hes head wa struck by the port prop on impact and killed instantly

[MALONEY432]

i was a firefighter on that day and it was awfull to say the least

[katara120]

when was this and what year, i was at duxford legends show today

[wwer3y9]

i was der aswell on sunday  :)

[JAMFUTUBE]

14 July 1996

[MADTASS]

Watched it several times now and looked like he lost height as a result of losing speed half way through the second roll, The second roll wasn"t as clean and precise as the first. Tragic what ever the cause, possibly not specific to this accident, but i do think that pilots push the envelope slightly at some of these Airshows with tragic/needless loss of life.

[franloveswillye42546]

DrSteinwater have some respect he was way more advanced in flying than u'll eva be and must have felt safe or he would have pulled out also no planes lose that much altitude in one role unless something with the plane did go wrong. i just feel sad the pilot had to die

[DrSteinwater]

doubt it.  i am an amazing pilot.

[Chappo304V8]

i am incredibly doubtful that you are an amazing pilot DrSteinwater, let alone a pilot at all, your arguements on this crash make it painfully obvious, such as not knowing the name of the most basic of aerobatic manoueveres for a start, also your knowledge of aerodynamics seems questionable at best.

[DrSteinwater]

pilot error 100%. You dont do barrel rolls especially more than one low to the ground due to excessive loss of vertical component of lift. if you do a barrel roll you want to be at a nose high attitude. and then as you roll out of the initial barrel roll your nose will be low. to continue a 2nd roll would be the end as demonstrated in the video.

[omglookwhoitis]

I don't think he meant to do that last barrel roll, I'm sure.

[Bradburger]

100% wrong Dr Steinwater, at least about the cause! On the the display the previous day, only ONE roll was carried out. The AAIB report concluded that the most likely cause of the second roll was by a control restriction - possibly the pilots kneeboard.

[DrSteinwater]

havent you ever seen the control column in a p38? no way something could jam it. however i think a control line was jammed or broke. either way he shouldnt have performed a barrel roll without having a nose up attitude in the first place.

[Bradburger]

Yes I have!

And btw, it wasn't a barrel roll.

And he did enter with a nose up attitude which was fine for one roll, completed succesfully the day before.

The AAIB report found no evidence of the control rods or lines being damaged or broke prior to impact, and the hydraulic boost system was working too.

[Bradburger]

From the AAIB report:

"The possibility of a temporary restriction to the flying controls (especially the roll control), or some other form of distraction of the pilot, could not be dismissed.

[Tjenilvec]

I was visiting the display at the moment it happened. Wasn't really shocked but more transfixed by the sheer brute impact of this P38 a few hundred yards away. The moment it happened I was in the process of exchanging the battery of my videocam.