Antonov 2 crash in Sweden with full Video

[JanetFlight]

According with swedish local media only with minor injuries for both pilot and pax.

Sweden reg SE-KCE, private ops.

An hell of a clip indeed...

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HERFWbPLTdc

https://twitter.com/i/status/1677902610890719234

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20230708-0

[andrasz]

Honestly, what were they thinking...
It is one thing that the An-200 needs about 200m to get airborne, and another thing to clear 50ft trees at the end of that 200m.

[VictorGolf]

Is it my hearing but does the power reduce at 0.12?

[ea200]

It apears to but I think that's just doppler effect.

[treadigraph]

Is it my hearing but does the power reduce at 0.12?
Sounds like a fairly typical recording to me, no noticeable power drop that I can detect.

With only five on board I would have thought it should have been off the ground in yards, that looked quite protracted.

[OUAQUKGF Ops]

Grass looks a bit long........

[Miles Magister]

Comments are missing some basic flying skills stuff here.
Lifted the tail, propeller theory dictates precession induced yaw, propeller theory dictates asymmetrical downward force and therefore drag on the main undercarriage more yaw and at this stage may be below Vmcg and Vmca so flying controls are not effective and putting any control movements just increases drag exacerbating the problem. Getting airborne too slow with big control inputs and flying sideways will never work as the a/c is below Vmca with extra drag from flying sideways and large control deflections it just gets worse with every attempt to correct. Basic error may have been that he drifted left, could not control it so decided to get airborne and fly to the right which was never going to work because of what I have written above.

[atakacs]

No expertise here but is this the full extent of flaps on the AN-2 ?

[EXDAC]

Honestly, what were they thinking...
It is one thing that the An-200 needs about 200m to get airborne, and another thing to clear 50ft trees at the end of that 200m.

Were the tall trees at the end of the airstrip or at the side of the airstrip My impression was that the aircraft drifted left into trees at the side. Anyone here know that strip?

[denka]

This seems to be the place in the video:
google.com/maps/@58.0500258,12.818985,3a,52y,319.34h,83.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sH1VZOkLx2Y6JQlU-xjx-Vw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=sv-SE&entry=ttu

[Ohrly]

This seems to be the place in the video:
google.com/maps/@58.0500258,12.818985,3a,52y,319.34h,83.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sH1VZOkLx2Y6JQlU-xjx-Vw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=sv-SE&entry=ttu

It certainly seems to be. So why were they trying to take off from a random field which is at best 400m long, and not the nice smooth tarmac of the airport 1km away?

[EXDAC]

This seems to be the place in the video:
google.com/maps/@58.0500258,12.818985,3a,52y,319.34h,83.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sH1VZOkLx2Y6JQlU-xjx-Vw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=sv-SE&entry=ttu

Thanks. I extracted the lat long and looked at the area in GE with an image time that may be similar vegetation:

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1364x813/an_200_2_20a24b157faab4a7cd003c2f87a9dc3d04b36d61.jpg

[Ohrly]

The video looks to be filmed from the gravel parking area near "181" in the above image. On Google Street View it looks like the field ramps up before descending after the rectangular road sign.

[denka]

Involved Pilot/Plane owner seems to own the very small so called "Kattleberg Airport".

[EXDAC]

Involved Pilot/Plane owner seems to own the very small so called "Kattleberg Airport".

Ok, but, that's not where the accident is reported to have happened. AG4850 is about 41 km WSW of the assumed accident site. The Antonov may be parked on the ramp in the GE 10/2021 image.

[MechEngr]

Looks a lot like adverse yaw - tried to bank hard to the right, but the additional drag on the left wing steered left, followed probably by more desperate aileron input and the ever appealing "Pull back to go up" attempt. The rudder never compensated for the yaw.

[roundsounds]

Comments are missing some basic flying skills stuff here.
Lifted the tail, propeller theory dictates precession induced yaw, propeller theory dictates asymmetrical downward force and therefore drag on the main undercarriage more yaw and at this stage may be below Vmcg and Vmca so flying controls are not effective and putting any control movements just increases drag exacerbating the problem. Getting airborne too slow with big control inputs and flying sideways will never work as the a/c is below Vmca with extra drag from flying sideways and large control deflections it just gets worse with every attempt to correct. Basic error may have been that he drifted left, could not control it so decided to get airborne and fly to the right which was never going to work because of what I have written above.

very impressive explanation, however Vmca and Vmcg are only applicable to multi-engine airplanes.

[EXDAC]

very impressive explanation, however Vmca and Vmcg are only applicable to multi-engine airplanes.

I was going to make the same comment and to include that the engines had to be mounted off center line. I stopped myself because some single engine aircraft are not controllable at full power on the ground below a certain speed due to limited rudder authority. I didn't know what V speed (if any) defined that. Anyone know?

[megan]

some single engine aircraft are not controllable at full power on the ground below a certain speed due to limited rudder authorityThe higher powered Spitfires were one such (Mk. XIV and XIX), unable to use full power for take off as the yaw had the ability to roll the tyres off the rims, even if you didn't go that far it caused severe tyre wear due to scrub, max recommended take off boost was 58% of that available.

[Miles Magister]

I was going to make the same comment and to include that the engines had to be mounted off center line. I stopped myself because some single engine aircraft are not controllable at full power on the ground below a certain speed due to limited rudder authority. I didn't know what V speed (if any) defined that. Anyone know?

I used th multi engine terms to illustrate what you have said. The basic information indicates that flight was attempted before there was sufficient airspeed for effective use of controls. The terms refer to multi engine aircraft but hew principles apply to al aircraft.

[andrasz]

This seems to be the place in the video:

Correct. Appears to be an agricultural field and not a prepared airstrip. Length about 320-350 metres, probably soft surface, There is just a small gap in the trees at the end of the field to the left and right, probably were aiming for that when tarting the run, then could not correct yaw.

[Busbuoy]

I used th multi engine terms to illustrate what you have said. The basic information indicates that flight was attempted before there was sufficient airspeed for effective use of controls. The terms refer to multi engine aircraft but hew principles apply to al aircraft.
I don't believe there are defined speeds as such for single engine aircraft as they would have no application from a certification perspective. Minimum Controllable Airpseed is an acknowledged term applicable to singles but is not related to directional control. The AN-2 has very powerful flight controls capable of effective use at very low airpseeds. The aircraft has no defined stall speed.
For my two bits worth, once the pilot failed to counter the yaw caused by propellor effects early in the roll and got the thing pointed at the trees there just wasn't enough airspace available to bank and fly out the gap in the trees. .

[EXDAC]

I initially though the aircraft had drifted left but the crash site appears to be at the stand of trees right next to the road. See the photo here - https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20230708-0

I can't decide if the takeoff started in the NW corner of the field or if it started at the West of the field close to the road. Starting close to the road would have required a takeoff path that curved right both on the ground and in the air. (See post 12 for view of the field.)

[ATC Watcher]

No expertise here but is this the full extent of flaps on the AN-2 ?
no , max flaps is 45 .its been 30 years or so since i very briefly flew it .the Siberian version without electrics and the “ spring “ starter so we took off without flaps .no real need for them as the thing is already in the air at 55km/h . It feels a bit similar to a Piper cub , you lift off but has to wait a while to have more speed to climb. Very easy to fly .
i cannot remember any out of ordinary large torque compensation , definitively not like a Spit or on the US types i would say .

if , as reported, the pilot / owner and the airfield owner was in the left seat he would definitely know how to operate the thing out of there .
The height of the grass on the video is something that would worry me however . On an unprepared runway if you have a wingtip touching the grass during lift off you will definitely alter course and you cannot control it aerodynamically .
.

[EXDAC]

if , as reported, the pilot / owner and the airfield owner was in the left seat he would definitely know how to operate the thing out of there .
.

Is there any evidence that this aircraft had ever operated from that field before? Do we even know why it landed there? The aircraft appears to have been based at AG4850 which is a short paved strip with a reasonably clear takeoff path to the East.

[Saab Dastard]

if , as reported, the pilot / owner and the airfield owner was in the left seat he would definitely know how to operate the thing out of there .
.
He was not the owner of the field from which the accident take off was made.

[andrasz]

I can't decide if the takeoff started in the NW corner of the field or if it started at the West of the field close to the road...

Looking again at the video, map and the ASN photo, it appears that the takeoff was along the dashed line, with the A/C coming to rest where marked by the white arrow. By the look if it they were aiming straight for the trees...

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1124x642/an_200_2_20a24b157faab4a7cd003c2f87a9dc3d04b36d61_3407cb5831 be0d18a5a85a7f5f92ae95e8a74f5f.jpg

[Ohrly]

Looking again at the video, map and the ASN photo, it appears that the takeoff was along the dashed line, with the A/C coming to rest where marked by the white arrow. By the look if it they were aiming straight for the trees...

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1124x642/an_200_2_20a24b157faab4a7cd003c2f87a9dc3d04b36d61_3407cb5831 be0d18a5a85a7f5f92ae95e8a74f5f.jpg

Whereas going in a straight line down the field would have meant having to clear a much shorter line of trees, set further back from the field. I still don't understand what the pilot was doing in that field, and why they attempted the take off that they did.

[Mikelman]

...according Facebook and "Antonov 2 Sweden" there was some kind of lorry or truck meeting there. That could explain the Antonov 2 visit.

[First_Principal]

Whereas going in a straight line down the field would have meant having to clear a much shorter line of trees, set further back from the field. ...

The video suggests the path taken was downhill for at least part of the run, whereas I suspect by the look of the satellite image it may not be quite the same for the run you propose?

FP.

[EXDAC]

The video suggests the path taken was downhill for at least part of the run, whereas I suspect by the look of the satellite image it may not be for the run you propose?

FP.

If you move the GE pointer over the suggested takeoff path you will see that the elevation initially increases then slopes down to the trees by the road.

NW corner of the field 339 ft
High point 346 ft
Just short of trees 334 ft

I think the slope is exagerated in the video because of the long lens and the fact the the roadside vegetation intrudes into the field of view. There is not much doubt where the aircraft stopped and the starting point is reasonably well defined by the building in the background.

[First_Principal]

Yes, I was just looking at the elevation profile when you posted. As it happens although the path was a little shorter Ohrly's suggestion may have worked out better:

From Google Earth, approx path taken incl elevation & length (in meters, sorry!):

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1688x246/ele1_427d6b601a0cf683315fb0079fbc1c2c52027761.png

Path proposed:

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1677x247/ele2_38099580782457cba8ea41ace1799120aeb0ba7e.png

FP.

[pax britanica]

The old Antonovs are truly amazing machines but I guess they do have limits like every aircraft. When I lived in Sweden there was an AN 2 based on a very short private strip not far from me . However it always had short grass and had a good clear take off run even though the strip was about 400 m with a road at one end. The the approach aids consisted of some faded planks painted black and white to indicate end of the runway.
I visit the Czech republic often and the local airfield has a resident for the skydiving club and it can be heard rumbling along most weekends. Its the only time I have seen an aircraft flying backwards too on a very windy day as it tried to climb to jumping altitude.

Close up they are really big aircraft and astonishingly 'agricultural' too but like AK47s and T34 tanks they do the job they were designed for really well , Amazingly short take off and landing and capable of a decent load for a single engine. even if it was a biplane that was designed post WW2 . I am no expert but they must come close to being the perfect skydiving platform aside from climb rate. Great fun to watch in operation and especially starting with that monster prop shrouded in clouds of smoke and noise. Such a shame the guy in the vidoe broke his in what was probably just a momentary abherration

[megan]

Friend was flying in Antarctica and came across an AN-2 and crew, was surprised to see a coal fired heater, with bags of coal, installed aft of the door with the chimney poking out the roof. Survival if forced down one assumes since neither spoke the others language.