Sheffield flypast / Tony Foulds

As for those who are critical of the pilot and his skills, eat a dick. He killed his mates making sure your grandfathers were not turned into fender Ketchup.
It's my opinion that it's those who hold this belief who are the ones dishonouring the pilot. To believe that he died as a result of avoiding children in the park, you have to believe that the pilot thought he could land a behemoth of a shot-up aircraft on a tiny (700 foot diameter) patch of damp grass that's surrounded by tall trees. That's a quarter of the distance that the book deems to be the absolute minimum.

I don't believe that he'd choose to do it because I respect his skill. With 15 missions under his belt as well as training beforehand, he would have instinctively known that the park was far too small to land in. My personal view is that the aircraft ceased to be flyable, whether through damage to the airframe, instruments, the engines or fuel tanks, and that it was pure coincidence that it did so next to a bit of grass. That has no adverse reflection on the skills of the pilot and crew.

I don't need the propaganda of heroic gestures, particularly when it implies that an experienced pilot can't judge a critical feature such as landing distance.
 
I'm not going to bother getting up a map of Lincolnshire to count the airfields between Sheffield and the coast in those days, plus the wide wide expanses of countryside that is England's second largest county. I'm sorry but the pilot was a total idiot to be anywhere near Sheffield.
Inane post.
 
A further witness (I think it was in a 2014 report in Sheffield's The Star) reported that Mi Amigo "fell out of the sky" - i.e. didn't glide in. They didn't mention what time of day it was.
I've already posted my interpretation, that the aircraft flew over the park from the south - then with the valley side ahead made a 180 turn and stalled into the trees. Witness accounts in the published books say the aircraft spun three times, which seems to confirm that is what happened. The limited area of the crash site also suggests the landing was close to vertical.
 
It's my opinion that it's those who hold this belief who are the ones dishonouring the pilot. To believe that he died as a result of avoiding children in the park, you have to believe that the pilot thought he could land a behemoth of a shot-up aircraft on a tiny (700 foot diameter) patch of damp grass that's surrounded by tall trees. That's a quarter of the distance that the book deems to be the absolute minimum.

I don't believe that he'd choose to do it because I respect his skill. With 15 missions under his belt as well as training beforehand, he would have instinctively known that the park was far too small to land in. My personal view is that the aircraft ceased to be flyable, whether through damage to the airframe, instruments, the engines or fuel tanks, and that it was pure coincidence that it did so next to a bit of grass. That has no adverse reflection on the skills of the pilot and crew.

I don't need the propaganda of heroic gestures, particularly when it implies that an experienced pilot can't judge a critical feature such as landing distance.
Why the assumption that he was trying to land? It is obvious to anyone that to do so was impossible. Is it not more likely that a crash was unavoidable and imminent and they were simply trying to hit the ground somewhere, anywhere, that wasn't full of houses?
 
Last edited:
Why the assumption that he was trying to land? It is obvious to anyone that to do so was impossible. Is it not more likely that a crash was unavoidable and imminent and they were simply trying to hit the ground somewhere, anywhere that wasn't full of houses?
This probably came from reporters and witnesses who assumed a B17 could "land" on 300m of grass. I think you're absolutely right - simply avoiding any houses.
 
Why the assumption that he was trying to land? It is obvious to anyone that to do so was impossible. Is it not more likely that a crash was unavoidable and imminent and they were simply trying to hit the ground somewhere, anywhere, that wasn't full of houses?
Because he seems keen to shoot holes in anything to do with Mi Amigo.

It happened 75 years ago, you're not going to know everything that happened as the only people who can tell you that died as the plane crashed.

It doesn't matter what happened except a bomber crashed, ten blokes died and a man has spent a great deal of his life tending to a memorial to keep the memories of Mi Amigo alive.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top