Tuskar Rock crash caused by collision - RAF man

[GoneToTheCanner]

Murph,
Not the Zephyr.Only the navalised CM175 was the Zephyr. The Air Corps Fougas were CM170-2s, the so-called Super Magister because they had the Marbore VI F2 engine of about 1030 lbs thrust, whereas earlier Fougas had the 880lb thrust engines. There were also some other minor differences in the avionics and the ability to carry the GPMG instead of the AAT-52...the Potez factory was supposed to produce the Potez 240 turboprop aircraft but the airlines didn't go for it and it was unsuccessful and never built. The hoped for French Air Force order did not happen because they already had enough light turboprop transports.. If the P240 had gone into production, they would have been taxied across the bridge to the Don and airtested from there.
regards
GttC

[Turkey]

Why would anyone schedule a 'routine test flight' on Sunday morning?

"Echo India Alpha Oscar Mike with you" possibly indicates that the viscount already had a problem, the normal thing was to use the flight number.

Why so much detail about the collision? I am no expert but I think the Fouga would have to have ripped off the airliners wing off to cause the aircraft to fall out of control.

Why should the slow speed of the airliner contribute to the collision, the phantom Fouga would have passed below the Viscount, well below the viscount , the speed of the airliner should have no effect on this at all.

As for this mysterious ejection; why increase power at all, you know that ejection is almost inevitable so why waste time ? Certainly an increase in speed is not the thing to do as the effect of any damage will be increased by this, as well as making ejecting more difficult.

I do not understand the 3 black clouds thing, I do not think all canopy's are removed explosively, as for the 'every action there is an equal and opposite reaction' idea.................... I'd laugh if it was not so tragic, I really do not see the seat charges having a lot of effect on the inertia of a speeding trainer.

And one last thing, if this did happen where is the Fouga wreck?.. in Ballyteige Bay, perhaps?
I wonder why no-one has found it?

Of course, we have to remember that this is just someones theory, but maybe, [to be as kind as I can be about it] a little more thought should have gone into it.

[yellowjacket]

I've extracted some quotes.

Here is said letter

TUSKAR ROCK AIR CRASH: THE CASE FOR A COVERED-UP COLLISION

My guess is that the extra cost and extra weight, without more thrust than the standard Fouga, left the French air force unimpressed and no orders were placed.

My guess is that Sud Aviation, after assessing the assets of its newly acquired company, decided to try to persuade the IAC to go for the ejection-seat version, helped by the company's presence at Baldonnel.

My guess is that, as with the French, the prototype was lent to the IAC for flight trials in the hope that a firm order would be placed.

I surmise that it was this aircraft that was contacted by the Viscount captain while it was on a routine test flight that Sunday morning to come and check if the cockpit indications of a partially lowered undercarriage were true or false.

- Yours, etc,

ERIC EVERS, (RAF Sqd Lrd, retd), Bourton on the Water, Gloucestershire, England.

Long on speculation, short on evidence - CSI this ain't...

[johnny no stars]

Complete cr*p, likely cause has been deemed to be technical difficulties with the tail (possibly resulting from maintainance errors). Others have speculated about birdstike (which would have been a hell of a lot more dramatic) but everything, including the british military and all that went with it (missiles etc) have been ruled out as the cause after lenghty investigation that was only complete in 2002. Clearly somebody has too much time on their hands to be drawing up conspiracy theories like this. I'll be going with the official line on this one.

As a side note, if there was any doubt whatsoever about the cause of the crash, the relatives of the two pilots would never have been presented with the IALPA wright brother's award.

[Tony Kearns]

http://www.eads.net/1024/en/eads/his...ouga_1950.html

Does anyone know which picture of a Fouga between a Vampire and a Doveh e is talking about in the report? Any chance someone could put it up on the forum?
Tony K

[Tony Kearns]

Here is said letter

TUSKAR ROCK AIR CRASH: THE CASE FOR A COVERED-UP COLLISION

Madam, - Jurgen Whyte, chief inspector of air accidents (March 27th), responding to my theory that the Tuskar Rock air crash was caused by a collision, points out that the Fouga Magister, which did not have ejection seats, did not come into service with the Irish Air Corps (IAC) until 1976, "a full eight years after the tragedy at Tuskar Rock".

I am well aware of this. Perhaps he could explain, however, why appendix 5.2g of the 2002 report by the international team, which is headed "Irish Air Corps Aircraft 1968", clearly shows a picture of a Fouga Magister in between the Vampire and the Dove aircraft. And please don't try to fob me off with the lame excuse that it is an error on the part of the person who produced the montage for this appendix.

The Potez Aircraft Company, based in France, manufactured this very successful two-seat jet trainer. From 1962 until August 1968, it had a factory at Baldonnel with financial support from the Irish government. In 1964 the Potez Company in France built a prototype Fouga Magister which did have ejection seats. This was lent to the French air force in 1964-65, presumably so that it could assess whether it wanted to place an order. My guess is that the extra cost and extra weight, without more thrust than the standard Fouga, left the French air force unimpressed and no orders were placed.

In 1967 Potez was taken over by the French company Sud-Aviation. My guess is that Sud Aviation, after assessing the assets of its newly acquired company, decided to try to persuade the IAC to go for the ejection-seat version, helped by the company's presence at Baldonnel. My guess is that, as with the French, the prototype was lent to the IAC for flight trials in the hope that a firm order would be placed. I surmise that it was this aircraft that was contacted by the Viscount captain while it was on a routine test flight that Sunday morning to come and check if the cockpit indications of a partially lowered undercarriage were true or false.

The pilot of the "other aircraft" misjudged his closing speed on the Viscount, probably because the Viscount was being flown slower than normal due to the possible undercarriage problem, and collided with the port elevator of the Viscount with his starboard wing tip tank just as it was transmitting his call on London Airways frequency: "Echo India Alpha Oscar Mike with you". Eight seconds later the co-pilot of the Viscount blurted out "Five thousand feet, descending, spinning rapidly"- only he wasn't at 5,000 but actually at 15,000 feet. In 1968 the altimeters in the Viscount were the same as those on the RAF Jet Provost in which I instructed. A student of mine when placed under stress, but on a clear day with no cloud, misread his altimeter by 10,000 feet, thinking he was at 1,000 feet when he was really at 11,000 feet.

The "other aircraft" immediately put on full power to get away from the stricken Viscount and this was heard by about 10 witnesses on the ground in the Bridgetown area as a sudden "roll of thunder". A few minutes later the aircraft was seen by six witnesses travelling in a NW to SE direction in the Fethard-on-Sea area and descending.

Witness No 1 gives a perfect description of what you would see if witnessing a two-man ejection from a jet aircraft. He describes the aircraft as "coming out of three small black clouds with a sudden sharp turn as if fired from those clouds". The "three little black clouds" are always produced when the three cartridges in the aircraft are fired, firstly to blow the canopy away and then the two pilots' seats. The second description endorses the simple law of physics that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The canopy and pilots go up and the aircraft goes down as the cartridges are fired.

How can anyone with an open mind and not involved in the massive "cover-up" that has now gone on for 39 years not reach the conclusion that another aircraft was involved and did collide with the Viscount, based on the witness evidence I have just described? If it was the prototype ejection-seat Fouga Magister that collided and was then abandoned to crash in Ballyteige Bay, does this explain the sudden demise of the Potez Aircraft Company factory at Baldonnel? The factory reached its highest employee strength of 113 in March 1968, the same month as the Tuskar Rock disaster, with very positive projections for 1969 announced only a few weeks earlier - only to go into receivership on August 9th that year. - Yours, etc,

ERIC EVERS, (RAF Sqd Lrd, retd), Bourton on the Water, Gloucestershire, England.

Apologies folks this is the quote that I should have posted, finger trouble and old age!
Tony K

[Tony Kearns]

Thanks Kermit,
If that is the picture that he is referring to its weird. That is from an article written by yours truly for Scale Aircraft Modelling in July 1981! and by the way Magister 216 is still at Baldonnel.
Tony K

[yellowjacket]

Has it been verified that this fella is what he claims to be? Claims seem to be very much of the "tinfoil hat" variety.

[Test Pilot]

Pic of Jurgen Whyte from his Air Corp days. This one from a mountain rescue exercise over Glendalough in 1981.

[spike]

god but he's a young buck there. think he was a comdt when i first saw him.

[yellowjacket]

Lanyards on flight suits - nice...

[hedgehog]

Lanyards on flight suits - nice...

wasnt that the means of wearing their dog tags

[Test Pilot]

wasnt that the means of wearing their dog tags

No, that was an aid to recovery if he had to ditch!

[hedgehog]

a scabby Lanyard

[Barry]

No, that was an aid to recovery if he had to ditch!

Unless it's made out of kevlar or some similar material, I can't see it supporting his full weight. Nor would it be very easy to get a hold of.