Mr Brooker said it was a very minor mishap.
“The wind turned around and it pushed the aircraft off line a bit. It was a pretty innocuous landing.
“One wheel folded up as the aircraft yawed around in the wind. I sat there and swore.”
…
He said he had “great hopes” he would get his Spitfire back in the air within three months.
“But that depends on the availability of parts.”
He said the cost of repairs was immaterial.
“It’s a bit like saying how much are you going to spend on a Picasso,” he said.
It was the aircraft’s second accident in New Zealand. In January it was damaged when it landed heavily at Hood Aerodrome, near Masterton.
Mr Brooker said damage in the latest incident was “nowhere as bad as Masterton”.

Oh so very harsh

Plane had just come out of the shop – following a re-build for the first accident at the beginning of the year. So, no, don’t think it would have been due to maintenance or skimping on da money

Initial reports in the NZ Herald & Stuff suggested more long the lines of a “prop strike” — plus a cross wind ??? factor.

for those interested – some of the background — and some pretty good images.

Had to pleasure to take one of the taxpayer’s assets to the original CAF facility at Harlingen, TX, for their annual show. Quickly figured out that there were a bunch of those folks with more money than airsense. They actually created at “VT-1″ — completed by stealing the patch and all, which was somewhat offensive to those of us who had to learn the convoluted entry procedure for NAS Saufley (before its days an an official prison, being then only an unofficial prison).

The reason for this attempt to force something even approximating NATOPS checks on a bunch of testosterone fueled captains of industry is obvious. The success, somewhat less. I’m just thinking that the confluence of self made money, and high performance a/c, isn’t good.

One story that crops up often is landing gear failure on take-off, the pilots throwing the lever before take-off was complete so the gear would retract as soon as there was no weight on the legs and they’d have one less item to check while setting up for a max-power climb. Couple this with a rough, grassy field and there were times when gear went up before the airplane.

Myself, I agree with you — the landing gear is a mechanical system and this plane was obviously in the air before attempting to land, ergo if the landing gear lever was actuated, the gear went down, and failed to stay down. Not the fault of the pilot, at least regarding his piloting skills. It may have more to say about his mechanical skills, his mechanic, or his willingness to open his checkbook for maintenance.

– Max