From NEWS Ltd Breaking News:

A LIGHT plane on its way back from a medical clinic has made an emergency landing in a paddock in north-western Victoria.

The pilot managed to land the plane safely in the paddock in Kalpienung, about 310km from Melbourne, before a wheel snapped off, causing the plane to flip on its roof.

Investigators have been told the two people in the plane were returning from Edenhope, about 395km north-west of Melbourne, after conducting a medical clinic, police said.

The pilot, a 54-year-old doctor from Mildura, and his passenger, a 58-year-old woman from Swan Hill, were treated for shock at the scene and taken to Swan Hill Hospital as a precaution.

Police said the plane started having engine troubles at 7500 feet and dropped to 3000 feet.

The pilot initially managed to rectify the problem and the plane climbed to a height of 3500 feet before again experiencing engine trouble.

Police said the pilot managed to land safely in a paddock at about 4.30pm (AEST) but as he was turning the plane the front wheel dug into the ground and snapped off, causing the plane to flip onto its roof.

"The pilot has done a great job in landing the plane safely," Senior Constable Matthew Jenkins said.

The aeroplane came down about 8nm ESE of Culgoa, which is on the Calder highway. Kerang and Swanhill are the biggest nearby regional centres and Swanhill hospital would've been the go. Fortunately both occupants of the aircraft are OK.

What a shame. From this..........

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/1121/dscn0080mc5.jpg

........to this.

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/8864/p1030794660xt1.jpg

A sad way to end ones flying days. R.I.P.

Now that is no way to treat a Bonanza!

And the moral of the story? Unless you are sure of the surface you are landing on - leave the gear up! This aircraft may well have suffered far less damage and would most likely have remained upright had it been put down on its belly!

Dr :8

Fresh supply of parts there Chuck!

J:E

GB - any speculation on the cause of the engine problem?
A subject near and dear to my heart!

Dr :8

in hindsight a wheels up is best. But when making that decision as in still airborne faced with little time it would be a hard pill to swallow when you know that there will be damage to the plane landed wheels up as against a wheels down ldg where it might have been possible to get off scott free


Wally this, like many other flying senarios, is best worked through in your head before the event - eg "what would I do if .......".

In my view, at the point when the engine stops delivering sufficient goods to keep me airborne, the insurance company owns the aeroplane - and I am totally commited to parking it in a manner that maximises my chances (and that of my pax) of walking away from it in one piece.

Dr :8

God damn it he's trashed BOTH leading edge skins:ugh:

I could use that right flap though:E

Most of the ribs prolly ok...I'll know if I need any of them in a few weeks.:}

Glad everyone is ok...yet another example of wheels up unless certain of the surface...look at how lush and green it is...good indication of soft surface...to soft for a Bo anyway.

FTDK and CHUCK

Funny you should mention about landing gear up in an emergency.

At a Bonanza proficiency course I attended a few years ago, a well respected guest instructor from the States (and experienced others)advocated landing with the gear DOWN to dissipate energy. He also reckoned that directional control by the nose wheel on the initial ground contact could determine what you ran into! The view was that the gear should be lowered unless water or known soft surface would be encountered upon the forced landing. I often debate within myself, what would be be the best choice, if ever faced.

It would be hard to know what to do before the event. I don't think you could blame that guy for leaving the gear down. From the air, and in that situation, it probably looked a pretty good place to park.

Sad to see a nice Bo end up like that. I'd love to know what caused the engine problem

At a Bonanza proficiency course I attended a few years ago, a well respected guest instructor from the States (and experienced others)advocated landing with the gear DOWN to dissipate energy.


Beachie, I reckon that's crap!

How many people get hurt doing belly landings?

The only one I can think of is a guy in Fiji many years ago who stopped feathered the props on an Aztruck and tried to get them horizontal. Didnt get it right - Aztruck on its back, cabin crushed, pilot dead!

Dr :8

PS: That's why I steer clear of Bonanza proficiency courses!

The only one I can think of is a guy in Fiji many years ago who stopped feathered the props on an Aztruck and tried to get them horizontal. Didnt get it right - Aztruck on its back, cabin crushed, pilot dead!


That's why you don't feather the props for a wheels up. If they dig in they don't bend as easy and you stand avery good chance of going on your back.

I know who you mean Beachy...he used to be against LOP operations too. He seems to have changed his tune on that.

advocated landing with the gear DOWN to dissipate energy

So he expects the gear to rip off/collapse? The main gear on a Bo is VERY strong. Look above for one result. Watch that takeoff crash in the states that is on youtube for another example.

He also reckoned that directional control by the nose wheel on the initial ground contact could determine what you ran into!

Um...nope can't get my head around that one...in fact I struggle to think of a quicker way to stress the nose gear:confused:

Anyone want to take a punt on what decision THIS pilot would make faced with another off airport forced landing in a retractable?

Yeah, FTDK I scratched my head at the time, but it sure gets you thinking.
What choice would you make if there was only big timber and a fence line with timber posts?
... or
a narrow dirt road cut out of a tree canopy and a chanelled claypan
...or
pulled timber and a big gibber/boulder plain....

What do you do?
gear up or down?

All hypotheticals
Some have walked away from these situations in fixed gear machines and lived to tell the tail.. and some have not.

I'm sure the pilot involved here thought he was doing the best option

Some of us lesser mortals of course don't have the option..... Looks like a nice open area for a forced landing. Anyone know, was that an Angelflight?

working anything out b4 hand in yr head is fine in the real world but we don't often live in the real world now do we buddy?

Wally, I have spent a lot of time over the last 35 yrs thinking through senarios. That's why the original Crash Comic was so useful and so sorely missed (and the current one such complete crap). You could work through, "What if I found myself in that situation"?

It has kept me safe for 35 years flying in two countries, and saved my hide more times than I care to admit.

I was the low time VFR PPL who flew into IMC - and out again.
I was the new CPL who flew up a valley under a solid overcast with the cloud on the hills either side - and turned around while I still had enough room to do so.
I was the pilot who landed on a road when the fuel guages were both on the red line - and bumbed fuel from a station property.

etc etc etc

If the FTDK's engine shits itself - its going in with the wheels up, unless there is an obviously clear hard long surface in front of me!

Dr :8

PS: ..... and I'll post the pics in here while waiting for the SES chopper to come pick me up!

When I was first learning to fly the WW2 era pilots were still (if just barely) the current crop of (really) old hands.

I think it would be fair to say there has never been in the history of aviation a bigger cohort of people with direct or indirect experience of this sort of thing...as in what % of service pilots hadn't experienced directly, or watched a squadron mate experience directly, a forced landing on an unprepared surface...and lets face it even the home bases weren't that well prepared sometimes.

1000s of pilots literally.

And the advice that came from that enormous experiential database?

If in any doubt - wheels up.

Somewhere in the last 20 years, and I cannot put my finger on exactly where/why, that rule changed.

There is yet another example of this change in attitude that led to a less than optimal outcome. In the last year or so there was an article in the ABS (American Bonanza Society) mag where a chap experienced a catastrophic engine failure and force landed into a mature corn field. He decided to put the gear down 'to absorb the impact' and tore his aeroplane up badly. He didn't flip but did at least as much damage as you see in the sad picture above.

Why?

I would take bets that he was told it was a good idea on a BPPP refresher training course that are so popular with my fellow ABS members. I have never been to one and won't be going to one anytime soon. I asked John Deakin if he'd ever been to one as I had my doubts about them. He admitted to having been to one once - and asked for a refund before leaving early.

Now if this chap had gone into the corn wheels up it is highly likely he would have done virtually no damage to his aircraft. The Bonanza has a built up keel that runs down the bottom from the nose bowl to the rear of the cabin...they are REALLY STRONG. Beechcraft built them that way because they KNEW plenty of their aircraft were gong to end up on their bellies one way or another. Imagine how gentle it would be sliding into 10' high corn and slowing down crushing the stuff under you as you went...you'd probably never actually touch the ground.

Instead he REALLY tore up a lovely V35B.

Few, if any, pilots are capable of being spontaneously clever. If you don't think through scenarios in the quiet of your living room, and read critically every article you can get your hands on about other peoples experiences, you have no hope of making the 'best' choice in the heat of the moment. That is why those of us flying professionally spend so much time in simulators - to condition the 'best' response in us to the point of it being automatic and devoid of emotion.

I am VERY firmly with FTDK on this subject - I can think of remarkably few scenarios where I will put my Bonanza down off airport with the wheels down. The edge of a dried salt pan is one - a sealed road another - and that is about it.

In every other case you're really asking for a minor miracle. How many dirt roads are without scary potholes? How many otherwise beautiful grass paddocks are without a log laying in the grass, or a drainage trench, old rabbit warrens...or soft surface/areas. I once ripped the nosewheel out of an Islander taxiing on a soft dirt strip in PNG. I wasn't going fast and everyone who came past on other flights while I was awaiting rescue looked at what I had taxied over and the result and said "That....caused that?" Yup:(

There was the case earlier this year when some chap put an A36 down in a paddock with the wheels down and he got away with it. Did he make the 'best' decision or was he merely very lucky?

I would suggest, unless he owned the paddock and knew it intimately, that he was mostly lucky. If I am ever faced with the reality discussed in this thread I will be putting it down wheels up and if I slide to a halt on a beautifully smooth, firm paddock I will still say that I made the 'best' decision because that beautifully smooth firm paddock was pure fluke.

That all makes sense Chuck.

I wonder what caused the ding in the leading edge of both wings? Fence?

Understand that all was going ok, until the fence in the picture prompted a turn when the nosewheel dug in and that was it. Chances are that it would have stopped by the fence, but even hitting it a slow speed would not have been as bad.:sad:

Instead he REALLY tore up a lovely V35B.

Glad you did not post pictures....Forkie would have had a meltdown:{


On a serious not, the notion of being able to steer with the is crazy, if its anything but smooth hard dirt or bitumen the nosewheel will not give much steerage at all. In fact at just after touching down the rudder (ruddervators) will be far more effective until the speed drops.

J

At this time of year down south you'd be looking to put the wheel up for sure on grass, it's just too darn wet to consider a successful out-landing. I had an outlanding on a proper grass airstrip and still ran into trouble!

Based on my recent bad out-landing experience I'll be aiming for a road of any kind for atleast the next couple of months, then back onto grass, as long as it's not round hay bale season though!

Beachy one wing tip is bent up and one down. I'd say he went over on the nose and right wing tip and then the left wing tip was damaged as the aircraft settled on its roof.

?fuel - (http://mildura.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news/general/crash-land/1258676.aspx)
the pilot " quickly switched fuel tanks and the plane climbed to 3500 feet before the engine failed again. He managed to land the plane safely in a barley paddock, but as he turned the plane the front wheel dug into the ground and snapped off, flipping the plan over."

What the ????

GB, are they water buffalo in the top pic of the A36 (the uncrumpled one!)?

Dr :8

Just as a comparison I once landed an A36 under duress (stress of wx) at Coonabarabran x-strip, long story in very heavy black wet soil. the plane stopped within a few meters & was covered in muck, enough to bog a duck !http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wbored.gif No sign of it going over although I thought it would the way we slowed so rapidly.

CW :=:=:=

you flew a single......... in bad weather....... and maybe even VFR:eek:


Cheers!:E

J:ok:

I have stayed away from describing the pilot's actions as wrong, bad or any other such negative terms because I don't think his actions deserve such criticism. It was very likely his first real engine failure/forced landing and he is alive to talk about it, as is his passenger.:ok:

To put a heavy, fast aeroplane, with relatively small high pressure tires, like a Bonanza down on an unknown surface successfully requires more luck than I like to rely on. He made a decision to lower the gear that I would not have for the reasons I have given...thats all. I'd be very interested to hear from him whether he would make the same decision again in light of this experience.

As I said before, one wingtip is bent up and one down. Someone suggested he turned to avoid the fence in the background...he certainly was still traveling at a fair speed because the aircraft ended up on it's back. If you think about the geometry of a tricycle undercarriage it is very much more difficult (but not impossible) to flip end over end even if the nosewheel fails. If you turn at high speed though, and something digs in, it becomes a different story altogether. I think the aircraft went over on its back on the prop hub and right wingtip and the left wingtip was damaged as it came to rest inverted.

Wally I tend to think if the entire field, or a goodly proportion was mud, a different result is likely. You slide in mud, even going sideways mud has 'give'...at least until it piles up...ask me how I know:hmm:

...ask me how I knowhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/yeees.gif

Ahhhh! How do you know? :E

Dr :8

You don't do 'rhetorical' real well do ya doc?:ok:

I bin down a couple of strips sideways:ooh:

Sometimes sooty's desire to receive 'stuff' overcame his ability to accurately describe the weather/condition of the airstrip.:suspect:

Forkie you showin yer age agin - bin a LONG ime since SES had anythin to do wiv helicopters in Qld :}

Chuck - giday bloke! Your beast any closer to being back in one piece?:p

Off topic - Gawd I hate the media sh!te about unijured people being "treated for Shock" :rolleyes:- or worse yet being "rushed to hospital":yuk:.

Shock (from trauma) is a clinical condition with a 20% + fatality rate and is associated with significant blood loss, NOT with having your nerves rattled by an injury-free near-death experience. Similarly, in near 20 years of emergency medicine I can count on one hand the number of times I saw anyone "rushed" to hospital.:mad:

Back to topic - so the Doctor Killer strikes again hey! Good to see they got away with it anyhow, discussions on the relative merits of forced landing configurations notwithstanding.:D

As much as it's possible to judge from the photo it does not appear that the surface of the paddock would preclude a gear down landing ie seems firm enough. Technique can make a difference, as in keep the weight off the nose wheel. Making an off airport landing is always going to entail a measure of risk and spent a lot of my youth operating out of wheat paddocks with stumps, rocks, furrows, stubble etc to contend with. Mate dead sticked his A36 after running out of fuel near Griffith during an air race. Landed gear down in a paddock (he too was wheat paddock checked :)) and would have been successful had a ditch not torn out the nose wheel at the end of the run, very little damage all told and soon put back in the air - didn't turn on its back though.

I treat my nose wheel like I would an 18yr old virgin. It amazes me how many a pilot I've flown with leaves it hard on the ground through the complete takeoff run. Whilst I know raising it will slow down the takeoff roll, a careful balance is required. Same goes for landing. Plonking it down straight away may result in what we are talking about here. The correct technique would be to leave it off as long as possible. Hard I know in an emergency but I'd rather run into a fence nose high than nose low.

I treat my nose wheel like I would an 18yr old virgin.

I will have to ask Ms XXX next time I see her......... She must have been about 18 when you two started formation flying!:E

J:}

As much as it's possible to judge from the photo it does not appear that the surface of the paddock would preclude a gear down landing ie seems firm enough.

How do you judge that at 300'-500' with no photo?

The fact remains the aircraft is upside down and written off.

Your mate was indeed very lucky that the trench was near the end of his landing roll not the beginning or he likely would have ended up like the subject of this thread.

Different story in a precautionary search and landing type scenario where you can do several slow/low flybys and have time to weigh options. A Bonanza glides a bit like an aerodynamically efficient manhole cover even with the gear up - gear down it is more house brick...compared to a Cessna anyway. Throw the gear out and you have to lower the nose quite dramatically to maintain speed (90kts recommended glide - configured) and the round out and flare just became MUCH more critical.

You have maybe 30 seconds to judge a surfaces condition from 1nm away as you turn final. Pretty big call unless you're a farmer. Looking down from 2-3000' above tells you, essentially, nothing but the colour.

- so the Doctor Killer strikes again hey!

Yes Jamjar, but not the fork-tailed variety!

I suspect the pilot harboured a secret ambition to fly a V-tail ( as everybody does) and this was his way of moving closer to that by modifying the tail of the A36 somewhat!

Pity about the co-latteral damage!

Dr :8

I don't know what this fascination is with virgins. They're like pre solo student pilots...only the vaguest idea of what they need to do next.:E

Ha Ha.. That is very good Chuck.

I am going to etch that very true observation upon my memory, to be recalled and pronounced at an appropriate time and place.http://s3.amazonaws.com/advrider/friday.gif

Unfortunately I won't be able to afford you any credit for it thoughhttp://s3.amazonaws.com/advrider/mwink.gif

A Bonanza glides a bit like an aerodynamically efficient manhole cover even with the gear up
My personal affiliation with the Bo family was via the T-34 and found it little different than the 172 I stepped from. If you want manhole cover try the T-28 in the carrier pattern - gear down, full flap, canopy open and speed brake out - glide ratio not much over 4, and at 325 feet.

A Bonanza glides a bit like an aerodynamically efficient manhole cover even with the gear up

Hmmm! I told you those A36's were truck like in their handling!

Now the V35B, on the other hand, clean, with the throttle closed and the prop on full coarse comes down at a tad over 500'/min, with about 90 kts on the clock! So what's that? A glide ratio of about 18:1?

Dr :8

Not passing any judgement on the pilot's actions, he was faced with a decision to make and made one and everyone walked away.:ok:

I would like to add to the discussion my view on the surface conditions. From the photo it appears to field is a crop of wheat or barley. Soil compaction is a big no-no for any crop to be successful, as a result it's pretty fair to assume that any field with a crop in is going to be soft (wether it's wet or dry) so unless 100% certain otherwise (say from local knowledge) treat it as soft.

Another potential trap in undulating country is contour banks. If it's undulating to hilly and there's cultivation then it's highly likely there will be contour banks. These can often be obsured by a mature crop and won't be noticed until very close to the ground. It's worth considering landing across the hill rather than up it. Obviously that would need to assessed given the circumstances.

As always, just another perspective to consider,

PW

Not very likely.

They have ALL the data for these kinds of things and would be more likely to thank you than make life difficult.

Interesting discussion though this one.
Certainly is Capt Wally when you look at, and compare it to the force landing of a Bonanza at http://www.pprune.org/d-g-general-aviation-questions/305798-light-plane-forced-landing-sunshine-coast.html

There the pilot was given pretty much a "well done" from all for pulling off a gear down force landing.

Jaba
Any body have any info on a very good effort on a forced landing today.

I missed the news, but apparently a job well done after an engone stoped for whatever reason.

Not picking on you Jab, just an example :p and the Doc posed the question

If faced with that situation in the Bo, the big question for me would be do you drop the gear - and risk folding the nose wheel and maybe ending up on your back - or put it in gear up?

No suggestion was made any where that he may have made the wrong decision by landing gear down, but then its a bit hard to argue with success. Only the Doc made a very astute comment.

The A36 manual in such circumstances says "Use of the landing gear is dependant on terrain". Boils down to the pilot making a judgement at a time of high stress and we keyboarders get to judge the resulting rights or wrongs at our leisure.

No problems Brian!

I just knew the countryside and was impressed he found anywhere to make a liveable forced landing, let alone fly it out again!:D

J:ok:

Not being a pilot, what are the chances of the aircraft ending up on it's back with possible physical injuries and/or death to pilot and/or passengers if you conduct a wheels up landing - as compared to the chances with wheels down - generally?

From what everyone seems to be saying, if you are at all uncertain of the surface conditions, you would be better off with wheels up?

I guess if you own the machine and it is uninsured and you have no passengers on board - you would be more inclined to have a go wheels down?

Di :confused:

what are the chances of the aircraft ending up on it's back with possible physical injuries and/or death to pilot and/or passengers if you conduct a wheels up landing - as compared to the chances with wheels down - generally?

In my view, quite low!

Dr :8

You're right it is a bit hard to argue with success and I admit to being more intrigued about what put him down in the first place but allowed him to fly out again the next day.

Like I said...he was VERY lucky.

I am not suggesting gear up is the only option but that it may be the 'best' option in a range of circumstances and it intrigues me why that option seems to have fallen through the cracks in the last 10 or 20 years. If there are good reasons why, then I haven't heard them.

I went back and re read the ABS article from the fella who went into the corn field. It is 'interesting' to read.

He did say that BPPP had taught him to put the wheels down but didn't allude to whether that statement was contingent on circumstances. He did remark that when he put the gear down his ROD 'doubled' and he all of a sudden wasn't going to make his first choice field and turned for the corn crop. He made the point that he was telling himself "Don't stall, don't stall" all the way in but then proceeded to round out and flare on the top of the crop - 10' off the ground - the nose/left main undercarriage collapsed as he yawed through 90 degrees after ground impact. Did LOTS of damage to an aeroplane he'd just spent 80k upgrading. The engine had 35 hours on it but 'partially' failed because of miss use of the mixture/throttle while formation flying. He was in formation on the way to Oshkosh doing that B2Osh thing they do every year.

This to me is a classic case of not thinking through a scenario before hand. If I was going into a mature crop it would be wheels up and I would try to round out just below the top of the crop - fly into it - and then flare while settling into the crop.

If there is one thing my time in PNG taught me it is 'fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible'. Several were the occasions when I thought I was history but kept flying the aeroplane and got away with it. Fly the aeroplane to a standstill and you will be surprised at the result. The classic example was my last forced landing in a C185 on a road just outside the circuit at Moresby. I was landing downhill, around a corner and in Sunday afternoon traffic - I hit a power pole support cable just above the road and the aircraft pitched down bloody near vertical - all I could see was road for an instant. If I had given up and flung my hands in front of my face we would have landed upside down and probably been severely injured or worse. As it was I kept flying the aircraft and we landed with only slight damage to the aircraft caused by the tie rod end of the cable whipping around the aircraft and removing the front of the pod and r/h cowl flap. That I managed to straighten the hook and rip it out of the concrete says much about Melanesian workmanship for which I am eternally grateful :eek:

http://www.fototime.com/{68E66A46-16B0-4504-9366-35E49061D04B}/picture.JPG

http://www.fototime.com/{1C888053-7159-43CE-BCE4-C7EB089E14F0}/picture.JPG

I tried to compress the piccy and failed.

flare while settling into the crop


That sounds so gracefull - like a duck landing on water.

Di :)

What the ????

GB, are they water buffalo in the top pic of the A36 (the uncrumpled one!)?

Dr http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/nerd.gif


They are indeed FTDK.

http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/8089/p1030785smallmx8.jpg

Looking the other way. The trees down the other end of the paddock are around 4000' away. The fence behind is about 40 yards away. Says it all really.

You'd have to think that gear down was all right turning finals into that paddock...mindfull that it is likely soft and to keep the weight off the nosewheel and go absolutely straight.

Very sad end to an aircraft.

GB PM enroute.

I clearly state earlier that the weather down here has not been conducive to a forced landing in a paddock but there seems to be a number of soil experts amongst us who believe otherwise! My point proven, thanks for the pic :ugh:

Interesting pic GB!

So, is the crop dying at the site of the upturned aeroplane due to fuel leakage from the tanks?

Dr :8

Interesting because nearby Quambatook recorded just 28mm for the month of August when the mean is 37mm (so abt 75% of LTA). Unfortunately BOM don't have the daily distribution up on the website.

But they do for Swan Hill - it had 24.4mm in Aug, of which 7.4mm fell after the day of the prang! And their LTA is 35.9. So they had only 70% of avg.

But even of more interest is that they only had 0.6mm of rain in the fifteen days prior to the accident.

If that paddock is saturated it must be like a giant sponge with a concrete slab under it, and no evapotranspiration happening. Could be I suppose?

PS Quamba also only had 25.2mm for July (67% LTA) and 13.9mm in June (40% LTA). :sad:

From the latest photo I would guess that the paddock surface was eminently suitable for a gear down - sorry to differ VH-XXX. As gassed budgie suggests, a touch down closer to the trees and this thread possibly wouldn't exist. The deep gouges I would say are caused by the aircraft travelling sideways, the aircraft is turning left and would explain the upturned right wing tip as its hit the ground in the turn and nose wheel snapped.

Edited to add - in a max possible turn the radius of turn for the outer wheel is 15 feet 10 inches and for the nose wheel 13 feet 8 inches ie the nose wheel and outer wheel are pretty close. Look at the tracks made in the photo and it certainly seems she is sliding sideways and digging divots with the outer wheel.

So, is the crop dying at the site of the upturned aeroplane due to fuel leakage from the tanks?

Dr http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/nerd.gif

As always an extremely pertinent question - the answer would certainly be interesting.

Wake up and smell the grasses guys, look at the paddock next to the one in which the aircraft 'landed.' It's dry and baron. The one they chose it practically an irrigated crop! Remember North Western Victoria, it's up near Swan Hill / Mildura etc, it's practically desert out there! :rolleyes::ugh: I must be the only former farmer here to notice these things. Ask the Dr. he knows this stuff too.

The paddock can't have been that wet, there's not a trace of mud spatter on the aircraft anywhere, even under the flaps.

The paddock the aircraft came down in had a very firm surface. The vertical fin did not dig in to the soil when the aircraft went over. After rectifying the problem (if the aircraft had not overturned) it could easily have been flown out again. As was alluded to above, the paddock on the other side of the fence around 40 metres to the south of the aircraft, had an even firmer surface (the word concrete springs to mind).
For some distance before the overturned aircraft, there are only two furrows visible in the paddock. Both the left main and nosewheel occupy that same lefthand furrow. In other words the aircraft was slewed across the direction of the skid at around an angle of 40°. Under that load it would appear that the nosewheel gave way, the nose dug in and it was all downhill from there.
The fuel tank caps are sealed up nice and tight, with no leakage of fuel past those. There was however fuel present in the tank.
There was probably 3000' or more of vacant paddock behind the initial touchdown point of the aircraft. It's not evident from the pics but there are wrinkles and creases in the fuselage all the way from the spinner to the tailcone. The wings have also been ruined. It'll be a write off.
Most unfortunate.

Over to you XXX:confused:

Quote :
"Now the V35B, on the other hand, clean, with the throttle closed and the prop on full coarse comes down at a tad over 500'/min, with about 90 kts on the clock! So what's that? A glide ratio of about 1.8:1?"

Er, no, its about 18:1 and I don't believe it! If it could do that I could sell them as gliders.

Er, no, its about 18:1 and I don't believe it! If it could do that I could sell them as gliders

You are correct - I missed a decimal place!

OK, so you are telling me that my Bonza doesn't come down at a tad over 500'/min with the throttle closed, the prop on full coarse and 90 kts on the clock!

Hmmmm! I guess I will just have to go fly it again!

Dr :8

PS: Figure 20.1 on page 185 of John Eckalbar's book "Flying the Beech Bonanza" shows about 500'/min at 90 kts for a straight 35 Bonanza at 2100 lbs - but what the f*ck would he know!

The L13 Blanik glider in which I solo'd 30 years ago had a glide ratio of 28:1 so the Bonza is hardly a high performance glider! My understanding is that high performance gliders have a glide ratio of at least 40:1! So I would put the Bonza in the "sh*t glider" class, even with its 18:1 glide ratio.

For record, if you leave the prop in full fine it comes down at about 1200'/min! If I can get my decimal places squared away properly - that's a glide ratio of about 7.5:1, perhaps not all that dissimilar to Chuck's "aerodynamically efficient manhole cover"!

I guess if you own the machine and it is uninsured and you have no passengers on board - you would be more inclined to have a go wheels down?

:eek:
Why oh why wouldn't you insure it?

This Thead is starting to get interesting!
http://s3.amazonaws.com/advrider/lurker.gif

The wheels up or belly landing is for tailwheel types. The risk of over-turning is greater than with a tricycle type hence wheels up. The risk with wheels up is spine damage as impact is directly through your seat if it is a heavy landing due stalling in from a high flare.

When the early jet fighters such as the Sabre first flew, the wheels up landing caused spinal injuries and research concluded it was safer to absorb impact through the landing gear. So military pilots then force-landed gear down unless ditching. If you hit rocks hidden in grass the wheels reduced the energy transmitted to the pilot's spine. And of course you had possible brakes to use and thus shorter landing run.

Opinions differ depending on personal experience and the reading of accident reports. In the end it might be a matter of luck or bad luck.

It's dry and baron.

I think you mean barren?

Hey Forkie, would it glide better with the throttle open? Interesting discourse on this recently in the Flying magazine (no, the yank one) which appeared to show an increase in gliding range with the throttle open due to less energy being put into turning the engine over against a vacuum. Semantics, but everything is semantics eventually! (I can sit up as late as I like now I don't hafta get outa bed to go to work anymore......:E)

2 nm (nil wind) for every 1000ft loss @<hidden> 135kts

So what's that Wally, 12:1 ?

Hmmmm, maybe we could "sell them as gliders"!

Dr :8

PS: Hang on a minute! How do you know that Wally? Don't tell me you have dowsed the fires, feathered the props, and gone gliding in the big Beech!

Hey Doc, those V35B's must be fantastic in the L/D dept at 18:1. The Cessna 182RG book has a diagram in there showing it will go about 10nm with flaps and gear up in nil wind from 6000'. I guess that is about 10:1? Not had much to do with the Veetail but the A36 seems to drop like the proverbial BSH without its motive power. Would be surprised if the Beech could out-glide a clean Cessna though.

This gliding stuff seems a bit surprising to me.. The 777 that 'landed short' with a double engine failure at Heathrow apparently went the best part of a mile from 600', dragging flaps and gear. Would have thought that would have had only one direction to go at final approach speed in that configuration. Just for the hell of it, I tried the 600', 1 mile glide in a C182RG with full flap and gear - it would certainly not have made it - so I guess even a dirty 777 can out glide a dirty Cessna???

BTW on the gear up or down thingy, the Cessna book says the norm is DOWN in its emergency proc section - but then adds a rider to say maybe up if soft ground - so its just amatter of you pays your money and takes your choice!

I read these posts with some chagrin, and wonder just how many of you have bush experience (or have forgotten the joy of it).

Firstly, I live 100 kms south east of the accident site, and work 200 kms north east of it. I live on a farm and have recently farmed in this district. (Now fly a desk thanks to the drought)

Two weeks ago, farmers in this area were talking of ploughing the crops back in, because of the dry.

Farming practice these days is no-till... the surface is a pancake. In many cases, they roll or compact the surface to retain moisture.

I grew up in this area, as a farmer. I learnt to fly from paddocks and unseal strips.

Initial CPL was in Central Queensland, cattle buyers into cattle tracks. Two years in the PNG Islands and one year Western Province. Most states of Australia. 30 years and I gave it away because the industry lacks knowledgable experience.

This fellow made the right decision to land gear down. He just wasn't sufficiently practiced in his forced landings to fit it into the space available.

Unlucky, but the right choice. Even for a Bo.

OK, this is my last work on the subject of the glide ratio of the V-tail Bonanza! Obviously both I and John C Eckalbar are mistaken!

Dr :8

http://www.fototime.com/412D5D6161262FC/standard.jpg
From "Flying the Beech Bonanza" by John C Eckalbar. SkyRoad Projects, Chico, CA