BE36 (G36) parked at YBTL today! (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ouch!
Yep, looking at the trees looks like a bit of tailwind to me, probably like most have said, with a bit of overloading and downdraft added. Had a m8 die in a 180hp C172 like that a couple of years ago...
Always a waste, of pilot and plane....when will people learn to think!
Re cirruses v bonanza's.....no competition...Bonanza people are like Car enthusiasts, Cirrus drivers are (often, but NOT always) like Volvo drivers.... I'm safe, so who cares about the rest of you.... Heard a non professional CPL holding cirrus owner bragging about a flight of 3 hours in cloud in his new cirrus in NQld. I enquired as to when he had done his CIR, he said he hadn't and didn't need to as the autopilot did all the flying and if he got in trouble he could just pull the chute..... (Shudders all round from the IFR pilots that may have been sharing that OCTA cloud with the offending blissfully unaware "pilot")
Yep, looking at the trees looks like a bit of tailwind to me, probably like most have said, with a bit of overloading and downdraft added. Had a m8 die in a 180hp C172 like that a couple of years ago...
Always a waste, of pilot and plane....when will people learn to think!
Re cirruses v bonanza's.....no competition...Bonanza people are like Car enthusiasts, Cirrus drivers are (often, but NOT always) like Volvo drivers.... I'm safe, so who cares about the rest of you.... Heard a non professional CPL holding cirrus owner bragging about a flight of 3 hours in cloud in his new cirrus in NQld. I enquired as to when he had done his CIR, he said he hadn't and didn't need to as the autopilot did all the flying and if he got in trouble he could just pull the chute..... (Shudders all round from the IFR pilots that may have been sharing that OCTA cloud with the offending blissfully unaware "pilot")
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cirrus exponents will tell you that they are very safe because the autopilot will do everything for you, which means you have more time for lookout. The reality is that they tend to use that lookout time to check their e-mails, send SMSs, see what's running at Randwick (nothing nowadays!) and so forth.
The last time I flew an SR20 I elected to forego George and hand fly the thing. I was paying $242 per hour for it and wasn't going to let a bunch of circuit boards have all the fun!
With regard to iffy weather. A mate of mine tried to get out through the KIM Gap in an SR20 one day and when the weather closed on him, elected to do a 180 and head home. He had to hand fly the turn because the air was fairly lumpy and the autopilot was making it worse by trying to correct the altitude all the time.
Walrus
The last time I flew an SR20 I elected to forego George and hand fly the thing. I was paying $242 per hour for it and wasn't going to let a bunch of circuit boards have all the fun!
With regard to iffy weather. A mate of mine tried to get out through the KIM Gap in an SR20 one day and when the weather closed on him, elected to do a 180 and head home. He had to hand fly the turn because the air was fairly lumpy and the autopilot was making it worse by trying to correct the altitude all the time.
Walrus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 60
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi again Doc - I'm in no position to make any claims of expert status in anything aviation. I tried a V35 a few years ago (ILJ) and with limited Bonza time (about 20 hr) I thought before I go boggng into the dark and cloud I'll get a feel for the thing. I quite enjoyed everything I did in it including simple power off stalls, steep turns etc, until I tried the aforementioned climbing turning stall. It simply snapped; no buffet, no warning, and scared me silly. It sure as hell made me aware of configuration and performance in the circuit.
Don't get me wrong; I like Bonzas (just ask Chuck). But I now have a very healthy respect for the operating parameters of the V35. If that was perhaps an idiosyncracy of that particular bird, that is OK; it still had the effect of making me neurotic about staying out of that zone, which is not necessarily a bad thing with limited time on type.
'Sideshow Bob'; I love it
Don't get me wrong; I like Bonzas (just ask Chuck). But I now have a very healthy respect for the operating parameters of the V35. If that was perhaps an idiosyncracy of that particular bird, that is OK; it still had the effect of making me neurotic about staying out of that zone, which is not necessarily a bad thing with limited time on type.
'Sideshow Bob'; I love it
Thread Starter
"how is the FTDK enjoying Broome? Has the Mrs bought up all the pearls a couple of maxed out credit cards"
Squarky
Interesting place to visit - wouldn't want to live here!
I was very discriminating in the Mrs selection area - went for one who doesn't like either pearls or opals!
Dr
Squarky
Interesting place to visit - wouldn't want to live here!
I was very discriminating in the Mrs selection area - went for one who doesn't like either pearls or opals!
Dr
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Hey Doc....lucky we aint going near broome in October then........can not say the same for the return trip, Coober Pedy is going to be a challenge......might have to call Amex and Visa and have a 1 day credit HOLD on my cards......you best do the same!
J
J
Silly Old Git
until I tried the aforementioned climbing turning stall. It simply snapped; no buffet, no warning, and scared me silly.
Thread Starter
I reckon the Tommyaxe has the most unexpectedly interesting stall of any aircraft I have flown. Been a while and I can't remember the configuration, but I guess some combination of power and flap - bastard of a thing rolled on its back.
Been trying to get something to do that for years - but that's a whole other story!
Dr
Been trying to get something to do that for years - but that's a whole other story!
Dr
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 11th Sep 2007 at 03:56.
Thread Starter
What story Doc?
...... rolled on its back. Been trying to get something (or someone!) to do that for years ......
Jaba - If I gotta explain it in any more detail, you're either too young or too naive to understand, and I'll just get myself banned!
Dr
PS: Bit subtle for yuh, huh!
...... rolled on its back. Been trying to get something (or someone!) to do that for years ......
Jaba - If I gotta explain it in any more detail, you're either too young or too naive to understand, and I'll just get myself banned!
Dr
PS: Bit subtle for yuh, huh!
I reckon the Tommyaxe has the most unexpectedly interesting stall of any aircraft I have flown.
This was different than the prototype which evidentally had a full set of ribs. The wing that went into production was known to be a 'soft' wing with the skins oil-canning under varying flight loads. This altered the shape of the airfoil section in different parts of the wing, hence the inconsistant stall beaviour. Piper also changed the ailerons and flaps (read, cheaper) to a more basic arrangment. A number of other changes were made to simplify production and to cut costs.
It was never quite the machine that Piper originally intended it to be.
The Bonanza accident
Preliminary information is in on the accident we were discussing a little while ago.
NTSB Identification: LAX07FA258
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Thursday, August 30, 2007 in Cameron Park, CA
Aircraft: Raytheon Aircraft Company A36, registration: N1098F
Injuries: 2 Fatal, 2 Serious.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On August 30, 2007, at 1235 Pacific daylight time, a Raytheon A36, N1098F, collided with terrain immediately after takeoff, at Cameron Air Park, Cameron Park, California. The commercial pilot operated the airplane under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91. The pilot and one passenger were seriously injured; two passengers were fatally injured. The airplane was substantially damaged. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and a flight plan had not been filed.
A news camera crew was filming airplane operations at the Cameron Park Airport and captured the accident on video. An FAA inspector and the Safety Board investigator-in-charge (IIC) viewed the video. The video depicted the airplane on its takeoff roll, accelerating almost 2/3 of the way down runway 31 before getting airborne. Once airborne the airplane climbed to approximately 40 feet before it settled back down towards the ground, and the wings began to wobble. The airplane settled into the rising terrain at the end of the runway, slid on the ground, and abruptly nosed over on to its back after encountering a fence.
Cameron Air Park is located in a slight geographical bowl, with rising terrain at both ends of the runway. Field elevation is 1,293 feet msl. The single runway is marked 31 and 13, and is 4,051 feet long. The Cameron Park Fire Department reported that the temperature at the scene of the accident around 1300 was 107 degrees Fahrenheit. In addition to the 4 adults on board, the airplane was loaded with 271 pounds of additional baggage/cargo, and at least 60 gallons of fuel.
Maybe someone who has an A36 flight manual can run the numbers and see how much runway was required for the conditions.
NTSB Identification: LAX07FA258
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Thursday, August 30, 2007 in Cameron Park, CA
Aircraft: Raytheon Aircraft Company A36, registration: N1098F
Injuries: 2 Fatal, 2 Serious.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On August 30, 2007, at 1235 Pacific daylight time, a Raytheon A36, N1098F, collided with terrain immediately after takeoff, at Cameron Air Park, Cameron Park, California. The commercial pilot operated the airplane under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91. The pilot and one passenger were seriously injured; two passengers were fatally injured. The airplane was substantially damaged. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and a flight plan had not been filed.
A news camera crew was filming airplane operations at the Cameron Park Airport and captured the accident on video. An FAA inspector and the Safety Board investigator-in-charge (IIC) viewed the video. The video depicted the airplane on its takeoff roll, accelerating almost 2/3 of the way down runway 31 before getting airborne. Once airborne the airplane climbed to approximately 40 feet before it settled back down towards the ground, and the wings began to wobble. The airplane settled into the rising terrain at the end of the runway, slid on the ground, and abruptly nosed over on to its back after encountering a fence.
Cameron Air Park is located in a slight geographical bowl, with rising terrain at both ends of the runway. Field elevation is 1,293 feet msl. The single runway is marked 31 and 13, and is 4,051 feet long. The Cameron Park Fire Department reported that the temperature at the scene of the accident around 1300 was 107 degrees Fahrenheit. In addition to the 4 adults on board, the airplane was loaded with 271 pounds of additional baggage/cargo, and at least 60 gallons of fuel.
Maybe someone who has an A36 flight manual can run the numbers and see how much runway was required for the conditions.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Peter
I do not have the flight manual for the incident aircraft, however some generic data for you on what is possibly the correct model etc.
BEW with unusable fuel etc 2530lbs
Estimate for 4 x pax 750lbs (and maybe more....its the USA)
Baggae etc as per FAA 271lbs
Fuel 355lbs and maybe more
Adds up to 3906lbs and quite possible to be 4000 to 4030lbs.
MTOW = 3650lbs which for us in Oz is around 160KG overweight.
Hot day too....41 to 42 degrees C
The runway was long enough.....but at that temp and pressure?? and so on it may well have been only just long enough, but 10% overweight and maybe an aft C of G as well. Plus a tail wind component, its not looking good for the pilot!
J
I do not have the flight manual for the incident aircraft, however some generic data for you on what is possibly the correct model etc.
BEW with unusable fuel etc 2530lbs
Estimate for 4 x pax 750lbs (and maybe more....its the USA)
Baggae etc as per FAA 271lbs
Fuel 355lbs and maybe more
Adds up to 3906lbs and quite possible to be 4000 to 4030lbs.
MTOW = 3650lbs which for us in Oz is around 160KG overweight.
Hot day too....41 to 42 degrees C
The runway was long enough.....but at that temp and pressure?? and so on it may well have been only just long enough, but 10% overweight and maybe an aft C of G as well. Plus a tail wind component, its not looking good for the pilot!
J
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Hey come on you guys, this is the Bonanza Forum now
quite the Cessna thing!
So anybody care to comment on the rough calc's made on the incident above?
J
quite the Cessna thing!So anybody care to comment on the rough calc's made on the incident above?
J
Grandpa Aerotart
I put the data through my pax load system (my own design) and for my aircraft the following;
Assuming 4 x 100kg (220lb) pax
Baggage 123kg (271lb)
Fuel 227 liters (60usg)
TOW 1699kg (max structural 1633kg)
CofG 2182mm (aft limit 2227mm)
If he burned down to 60 liters fuel at his planned landing the CofG would have been 2190mm (aft limit 2227mm)
Now two of the pax were women and even older overweight Yank women are not typically 100kg...maybe 75-80?
So in my aeroplane they would have been around max structural TOW or maybe a 10kgs over (non issue) and safely inside the rear limit of the CofG envelope. I don't know how old that aeroplane was...it may well have been a much later model than mine and loaded with all the stuff yanks love like aircon etc making it's empty weight much higher than mine.
1200m of TORA, 41C/1300' amsl = be a little wary. Combined with MTOW and rising terrain = not much in the margins.
Turbulence/TW component and all the above factors suggest excellent pilot technique required that recognises and makes concious allowance for all the above. I very much doubt that existed.
Assuming 75kg female pax and full tanks TOW/CofG = 1709/2151 so 75kg overweight but still comfortably inside the aft CofG limit. You would get something similar with a higher A/C empty weight and only 60usg...either way test pilot territory.
Assuming 4 x 100kg (220lb) pax
Baggage 123kg (271lb)
Fuel 227 liters (60usg)
TOW 1699kg (max structural 1633kg)
CofG 2182mm (aft limit 2227mm)
If he burned down to 60 liters fuel at his planned landing the CofG would have been 2190mm (aft limit 2227mm)
Now two of the pax were women and even older overweight Yank women are not typically 100kg...maybe 75-80?
So in my aeroplane they would have been around max structural TOW or maybe a 10kgs over (non issue) and safely inside the rear limit of the CofG envelope. I don't know how old that aeroplane was...it may well have been a much later model than mine and loaded with all the stuff yanks love like aircon etc making it's empty weight much higher than mine.
1200m of TORA, 41C/1300' amsl = be a little wary. Combined with MTOW and rising terrain = not much in the margins.
Turbulence/TW component and all the above factors suggest excellent pilot technique required that recognises and makes concious allowance for all the above. I very much doubt that existed.
Assuming 75kg female pax and full tanks TOW/CofG = 1709/2151 so 75kg overweight but still comfortably inside the aft CofG limit. You would get something similar with a higher A/C empty weight and only 60usg...either way test pilot territory.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 12th Sep 2007 at 03:38.