clearfinalsno1
4th Apr 2010, 21:50
Not sure if this has been seen yet. This guy's worst day...
Floatplane struggles to get airborne (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b6f_1270238191)
I have no knowledge of this particular accident, other than watching the video.
I have no time float plane flying or accident investigating but would I be correct in thinking a little forward pressure on the column as in, on the step, or not, was missing here, how so ever caused?? Float rating is high on my list of things to do to make my 33 years of accident free aviating complete.
Thank you PilotDAR for your response.
GGR
Pilot DAR
5th Apr 2010, 02:27
Preface this by saying that I have no knowledge of this particular accident, other than watching the video.
If my uninformed opinion mattered, I would say there was a loading or C of G factor in the crash. Of the dozen or so types of float equipped aircraft I have flown, the Beaver has to be the easiest to get off the water, as long as it is correctly loaded.
I did many hours of flight evaluation, a number of years ago, for the STC design approval of the modification of the Beaver to move the engine 9.75" further forward, to reduce the chances of aft C of G loading errors, particularly on floats. The modification was a remarkable success. It has been proposed that the original DHC Beaver design was planned to use a "Gypsy" series engine, whose length made the engine C of G further forward. A change to the Beaver's design resulted in the radial being used instead, and the affect was a more aft C of G than perhaps originally planned. The aircraft still flew well, but mis loading aft was more possible.
Over the years, cabin changes by STC provided more space aft in the cabin (evidenced by the changed rear window on the subject aircraft), which further enabled aft loading.
Once you get the C of G far enough aft on a float plane, pushing over to get on the step is really challenging. While nose high in displacement, turning is not so easy. Once on the step, changing the direction of the takeoff run is easier. It looks like lots of space was available, the pilot just could not get the aircraft aligned before he ran out of space. There are probably many factors which made this takeoff not work out, the best we can do is learn, so we don't do it our selves(I came close once, to doing just the same thing in a 185, and I don't forget!)
This video has been around for getting on for 2 years. It was extensively commented upon on the Supercub.org site for one.
The extra details given there were pretty damning. It happened at Lake Hood and the video cameraman was from memory on the south side of the lake where the water runway proper starts.
The pilot had aready totalled a C185 on floats under similar circumstances - which lead to a lot of dicussion about banning 'overpaid' doctors from flying!
Pilot DAR makes the essential point - he never got onto the step and with the wind from the west it was turning the aircraft towards the south shore and away from the runway due to the heels of the floats dragging and moving the centre of resistance aft. (the run starts from the north side of the lake so cross wind)
Fascinating background to the Beaver's design which makes perfect sense.