Cessna Chancelor 414 down at EGTN
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna Chancelor 414 down at EGTN
The N registered Cessna twin came in around midday to Enstone. Stayed a couple of hours then departed.
Unfortunately on departure 26 hard, there was a problem, very unusual attitude and very low as it crossed the end of the North side grass then went down into the chicken farm with a very loud bang
Both occupants managed to get out, fire almost immediate right after impact.
Pilot had only grazes, other gentleman was taken to farm office.
What was very instructive was how quickly there was a fairly intensive blaze after initial impact.
Police were on the scene fairly rapidly closely followed by a fire engine, the Air Ambulance shortly after.
Unfortunately on departure 26 hard, there was a problem, very unusual attitude and very low as it crossed the end of the North side grass then went down into the chicken farm with a very loud bang
Both occupants managed to get out, fire almost immediate right after impact.
Pilot had only grazes, other gentleman was taken to farm office.
What was very instructive was how quickly there was a fairly intensive blaze after initial impact.
Police were on the scene fairly rapidly closely followed by a fire engine, the Air Ambulance shortly after.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big rudder, low VMC(a) 68 Kts. The factory Continentals were a bit temperamental, but there were a number of other options. The gear operating speed was quite rapid but for the size and weight a little underpowered.
When it went past at the corner of the hangar it was yawing to starboard, not climbing, very low slow and obviously in serious trouble.
Great outcome with two walking away from this unfortunate accident.
When it went past at the corner of the hangar it was yawing to starboard, not climbing, very low slow and obviously in serious trouble.
Great outcome with two walking away from this unfortunate accident.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Local paper article plus pictures
Note the reader comments at the end about KFC flame-grilled chicken.
Indeed had this been JetBlast then I expect the number of chicken fatalities would be uppermost in peoples minds.......
Oxford Mail
Note the reader comments at the end about KFC flame-grilled chicken.
Indeed had this been JetBlast then I expect the number of chicken fatalities would be uppermost in peoples minds.......
Oxford Mail
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,597
Received 275 Likes
on
153 Posts
Well, if he had an engine failure then that's a hell of a way to get the prop feathered... sorry!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poor little chaps, they were only chicks.
With only two on board, unless carrying an extraordinary amount of fuel or freight, performance should not have been a problem. People forget the huge variation in OEI performance available in bigger piston twins. People like to make comments like this, partly, in my opinion, to reassure themselves, but history often tells another story if the full facts ever out (which they’re most unlikely to in a case like this).
The single engine climb on the 414 is pretty miserable, 240 fpm, but...as you say with gear up and feathered engine.
Gear up transit speed is quite high and VMC is, for a twin, quite low. Hadn’t flown the 414 but had a fair bit if time on 310, 401, 402 and 404, none were that great single engine, and luckily never had an engine out on any of them.
Had one on the Twin Com, five on DC3’s, and two on DC4’s. Twin Com was the trickiest, the others fortunately pretty standard. The DC4’s we had were called the LAVCO Tri-motors, went out on 4 back on 3, they were pretty old.
With only two on board, unless carrying an extraordinary amount of fuel or freight, performance should not have been a problem. People forget the huge variation in OEI performance available in bigger piston twins. People like to make comments like this, partly, in my opinion, to reassure themselves, but history often tells another story if the full facts ever out (which they’re most unlikely to in a case like this).
Gear up transit speed is quite high and VMC is, for a twin, quite low. Hadn’t flown the 414 but had a fair bit if time on 310, 401, 402 and 404, none were that great single engine, and luckily never had an engine out on any of them.
Had one on the Twin Com, five on DC3’s, and two on DC4’s. Twin Com was the trickiest, the others fortunately pretty standard. The DC4’s we had were called the LAVCO Tri-motors, went out on 4 back on 3, they were pretty old.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,597
Received 275 Likes
on
153 Posts
I believe the 411 was the worst Cessna twin for engine related accidents on take off. I read a story that Cessna hired test pilot Al White, who survived the XB-70 mid air collision, to demonstrate the aircraft's ability to climb away on one; he landed the aircraft wheels up in a field a mile or two off the end of the runway after problems feathering the prop on the "failed" engine.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very lucky escape indeed as such accidents are usually fatal if the aurcraft wasn't fully under control until impact.
The aircraft was built in 1971 and contrary to what other reports state it is not a Chancellor for this one has tip tanks.
In 1971 I was a ME demo pilot for Cessna in Europe and that included flying and demonstrating all of the Cessna twins, including SErate of climb. The 411 was the first of the cabin class Cessnas and had a much smaller fin and rudder, big drag producing cowl flaps. Therefore that comment is irrelevant.
The 414 was much like the 401 but pressurised and had 310 hp engines. The original Cessna Owners Manual only shows take off with flaps UP. It does not have a GAMA format POH. The electrical undercarriage system is slow to fully retract and for the gear doors to close. If you do retract the gear at low speeds then the opening main gear doors produce drag and loss of lift and the C of G moves aft as the nose wheel retracts aft and this can affect the VMC.
This aircraft had the RAM modifications with probably 325hp and a Micro VG kit designed to lower the take off safety speed and best SE rate of climb speed. I do not know if RAM or the VG people have published any FAA approved takeoff or climb performance charts using flaps up or 10 for take off and climb. Heresay and visual observations and actual handing characteristics are one thing but testing to an approved schedule is another.
The Cessna 414 is a very nice flying aircraft provided it is not overloaded with equipment. I do not know the history of this aircraft but many that came to Europe at that time were very well equipped with all of the options. They had to be to keep raise the empty weight above 2000kg for if it was below then you had to pay higher import duty.
I have log books full of very happy memories in operating these turbocharged Cessna twins from the Arctic to the Sudan and Saudi Arabia in ISA + 25 and we are currently ISA +15 but that does make a difference in performance.
Let's not speculate on what happened and hope that the co-pilot makes a fully and speedy recovery. The AAIB will certainly be interested in receiving balanced comments from qualified witnesses and any videos that can add value to their investigation.
The aircraft was built in 1971 and contrary to what other reports state it is not a Chancellor for this one has tip tanks.
In 1971 I was a ME demo pilot for Cessna in Europe and that included flying and demonstrating all of the Cessna twins, including SErate of climb. The 411 was the first of the cabin class Cessnas and had a much smaller fin and rudder, big drag producing cowl flaps. Therefore that comment is irrelevant.
The 414 was much like the 401 but pressurised and had 310 hp engines. The original Cessna Owners Manual only shows take off with flaps UP. It does not have a GAMA format POH. The electrical undercarriage system is slow to fully retract and for the gear doors to close. If you do retract the gear at low speeds then the opening main gear doors produce drag and loss of lift and the C of G moves aft as the nose wheel retracts aft and this can affect the VMC.
This aircraft had the RAM modifications with probably 325hp and a Micro VG kit designed to lower the take off safety speed and best SE rate of climb speed. I do not know if RAM or the VG people have published any FAA approved takeoff or climb performance charts using flaps up or 10 for take off and climb. Heresay and visual observations and actual handing characteristics are one thing but testing to an approved schedule is another.
The Cessna 414 is a very nice flying aircraft provided it is not overloaded with equipment. I do not know the history of this aircraft but many that came to Europe at that time were very well equipped with all of the options. They had to be to keep raise the empty weight above 2000kg for if it was below then you had to pay higher import duty.
I have log books full of very happy memories in operating these turbocharged Cessna twins from the Arctic to the Sudan and Saudi Arabia in ISA + 25 and we are currently ISA +15 but that does make a difference in performance.
Let's not speculate on what happened and hope that the co-pilot makes a fully and speedy recovery. The AAIB will certainly be interested in receiving balanced comments from qualified witnesses and any videos that can add value to their investigation.
