Emergency Landing NW Victoria
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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! 
I must be the only former farmer here to notice these things. Ask the Dr. he knows this stuff too.
I must be the only former farmer here to notice these things. Ask the Dr. he knows this stuff too.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said 'PF' in a previous post, not a sign of any mud on the A/C, if it had been a boggy surface signs as such would be everywhere on the plane as well as on the ground, there is an old saying, "ya don't need to be a cook to boil water"
Yr observations as being an irrigated crop XXX i'd say are spot on agree with you there but it's still not boggy enough to stop a duck or flip a plane going in a straight line I reckon, sideways is a different matter!
CW
Yr observations as being an irrigated crop XXX i'd say are spot on agree with you there but it's still not boggy enough to stop a duck or flip a plane going in a straight line I reckon, sideways is a different matter!CW
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks 'BG' for that detailed update I felt it was firm ground there.
Poor bugger must have been a nasty experience gong sideways for while out of control, as long as they walked away, who cares about a SE plane anyway
CW
I felt it was firm ground there.Poor bugger must have been a nasty experience gong sideways for while out of control, as long as they walked away, who cares about a SE plane anyway
CW
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: australia
Age: 66
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
"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
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
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"!
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 6th Sep 2008 at 12:54.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 61
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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......)
)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yr right 'BK' this thread is getting interesting inc the arrival of the spelling/gramer (grammar) police It's getting very technical as well, goody now I know where I can get all the plane guff from
Hey DR shame they don't have a fully feathering option for the Bo that way you could hang around for the next thermal The B200 glides as per the book 2 nm (nil wind) for every 1000ft loss @ 135kts. Gliding any plane (other than a glider) would be scarey enough but to have to land off it thinking about doing so clean as in no wheels into a paddock (one which to some is dry as a chip & borderline lake to others) just adds to the pucker factor!
CW
It's getting very technical as well, goody now I know where I can get all the plane guff fromHey DR
shame they don't have a fully feathering option for the Bo that way you could hang around for the next thermal The B200 glides as per the book 2 nm (nil wind) for every 1000ft loss @ 135kts. Gliding any plane (other than a glider) would be scarey enough but to have to land off it thinking about doing so clean as in no wheels into a paddock (one which to some is dry as a chip & borderline lake to others) just adds to the pucker factor!CW
2 nm (nil wind) for every 1000ft loss @ 135kts
Hmmmm, maybe we could "sell them as gliders"!
Dr
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!
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 6th Sep 2008 at 23:32.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bendigo, Australia
Age: 76
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
From "Flying the Beech Bonanza" by John C Eckalbar. SkyRoad Projects, Chico, CA
Dr
From "Flying the Beech Bonanza" by John C Eckalbar. SkyRoad Projects, Chico, CA
