LASER DC-3 crash in Colombia
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Trinidad And Tobago
Age: 53
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Trinidad And Tobago
Age: 53
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless it bounced somewhere else before this and it's not in the pic the crash site from what we can see lacks evidence of forward momentum on impact,and I 've got just the fly example for you,gimme a minute..
DC-3 stall with skydiver video
Look at this video to give you an idea at what Raptor System TT is referring.
Just imagine the ground way much closer.
Look at this video to give you an idea at what Raptor System TT is referring.
Just imagine the ground way much closer.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 69
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simply IMPOSSIBLE if we take that video as a source for discussion.
To just leave both wings on the right place (one broken/charred the other almost intact) and the tail section just sitting on the ground...???
With no forward or lateral traces of movement?
That's not a bike. A DC-3 weights about 8 tons plus cargo & pax (if I can remember correctly).
And MOVING...
To just leave both wings on the right place (one broken/charred the other almost intact) and the tail section just sitting on the ground...???
With no forward or lateral traces of movement?
That's not a bike. A DC-3 weights about 8 tons plus cargo & pax (if I can remember correctly).
And MOVING...
Last edited by guadaMB; 11th Mar 2019 at 14:45. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Trinidad And Tobago
Age: 53
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simply IMPOSSIBLE if we take that video as a source for discussion.
To just leave both wings on the right place (one broken/charred the other almost intact) and the tail section just sitting on the ground...???
With no forward or lateral traces of movement?
That's not a bike. A DC-3 weights about 8 tons plus cargo & pax (if I can remember correctly).
And MOVING...
To just leave both wings on the right place (one broken/charred the other almost intact) and the tail section just sitting on the ground...???
With no forward or lateral traces of movement?
That's not a bike. A DC-3 weights about 8 tons plus cargo & pax (if I can remember correctly).
And MOVING...
Many factors can influence the outcome of obvious physics,and they are also 'physics'..normal physics can be manipulated by other physical factors on the day.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Trinidad And Tobago
Age: 53
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know why my post was deleted yesterday,maybe I spammed on my 10th?
This is the vid I was referring to,they even mention "flat spin" I hope this isn't a fly..
This is the vid I was referring to,they even mention "flat spin" I hope this isn't a fly..
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: cheese
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it possible that the bare area in front if the plane, across the road, is the impact scar?
It would have had to turn 180 after impact. Or is it a coincidence that the only row of palms(?) that doesn't extend right up to the roadway happens to be exactly across from where the plane ended up?
It would have had to turn 180 after impact. Or is it a coincidence that the only row of palms(?) that doesn't extend right up to the roadway happens to be exactly across from where the plane ended up?
Also reports "DC-3" which yes, can also mean converted C-47
42-23838 (MSN 9700) to USAAF Jun 15, 1943. Elmendorf, Alaska Apr 30, 1944. Became NC49538 in Jun 1946 with Mount McKinley Airfreight Company at Anchorage, AK, then N7V. Proctor and Gamble Ltd converted it to a DC-3 in 1950 as N3W, then N3PG. To First National Stores of Somerville, MA Feb 1969 as N308FN. To S. J. Hunter Realty Ltd, Sayville, NY (May 1972), South Bay Electric Supply Co, Inc Patchogue, NY Jul 1972. To Air Cardinal in Canada then CF-EEX with Aladin Safaris, Dorval, QP Jul 29, 1973, Air Caravane leased Jul 1973. To Golfe Air Quebec, Hauterive, QP (1975), then C-FEEX with Golfe Air Quebec then AirGava. Feb 1982 to Century Airlines of Pontiac, Michigan as N2669A. Then to Spain with ARM Paife as EC-187 then EC-FNS Aug 1992. Bought by Mistair as N47FK named "Fifi Kate". To Aces High Flying Museum, Dakota Club, North Weald, Exxes. Starred in "Band of Brothers" with D-Day serial 292912 and other films. Noted in open storage at Lee-on-Solent Airfield, England Oct 2003, wearing false serial 292912. Leased by Aviodrome from Mistair for summer of 2004. N47FK became HK-4700X, ferried thru Opa Locka, Fl May 20101 for Laser Aero Colombia. As HK-4700 on Nov 6, 2010 sustained substantial damage in accident at Puerto Carreno-Guerima Airport, Colombia. No fatalities. Repaired, but crashed May 8, 2014 near San Vicente del Caguan, Colombia. 2 pilots and four crew members killed.
Interesting. Is there an economic sense to do so when speaking TCO ? It must be quite expensive to maintain those airframes in fly worthy conditions - I'm pretty sure a more modern design could deliver the same services with both lower costs and increased security...
Word is from friends in Colombia, the aircraft had a engine failure and could not feather prop. While flying to alternate airport could not maintain altitude with remaining engine. Vaya con dios.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Out of a Suitcase
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You would reach Vmc before the aircraft stalled.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the things that has kept these old Dak's flying in remote areas of South America, is that they can easily land and take off on very rough dirt airstrips. It's like the largest "bush plane" out there. As long as there are spare parts and local mechanics to work on them, it's not easy to replace the amount of cargo and pax they can haul in and out of these remote unpaved airstrips in a single flight.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Paisley, Florida USA
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMERDISCLAIMER I am not an expert on much of anything that really matters and am not current on any aircraft type.
A couple of decades ago, I was a designated Party to an NTSB investigation into the crash of a Cessna 205. The aircraft entered a spin at approximately 3,000 ft. AGL.This spin developed into a flat spin with a nearly vertical descent into a cultivated farm field.All aboard the aircraft were killed by the impact, and an ensuing fire consumed most of the fuselage.The wreckage array of the Laser DC-3 reminds me very much of the array of the wreckage of the C-205.Judging from the undisturbed crop rows in the immediate vicinity of the crash site, there was almost no lateral movement of the C-205 at impact.The photos of the DC-3 crash site reveal little or no terrain disturbance beyond the wreckage itself, indicating a vertical descent.Lack of longitudinal crushing of the fuselage, nacelles and wings indicate to me that the DC-3 impacted in a flat attitude.
The only thing I can think of that would cause a DC-3 to enter a flat spin on approach to landing would be the loss of an engine and the inability to feather the prop of the dead engine. This is what wrench1 reported in his Post #31 above.A windmilling prop offers much more drag than a feathered one, so VMC with a windmilling prop would be significantly higher than that with a feathered prop.Combine that with the likelihood that the DC-3 PF (Pilot Flying) was carrying a lot of power on the good engine, just to stay in the air, sets them up for tragedy.As Eric Janson points out in his Post #32 above, a controlled descent into terrain would have been possible if power to the good engine had been quickly cut.I have less than 10 hours in the DC-3; therefore, I know next to nothing about the airplane, but the old “Goon” (“Gooney Bird”) is a solid airplane with no reputation of biting the pilots in the butt by being overly touchy.I think that the instinct of most pilots is to keep the airplane in the air, but the inability to feather a prop of a twin engine airplane is a game changer.
The way the wreckage sits when viewed in the ground level photo, indicates to me that the DC-3 was in a right-hand flat spin when it impacted, indicating that it was the No. 2 engine that failed (speculation on my part).
A couple of decades ago, I was a designated Party to an NTSB investigation into the crash of a Cessna 205. The aircraft entered a spin at approximately 3,000 ft. AGL.This spin developed into a flat spin with a nearly vertical descent into a cultivated farm field.All aboard the aircraft were killed by the impact, and an ensuing fire consumed most of the fuselage.The wreckage array of the Laser DC-3 reminds me very much of the array of the wreckage of the C-205.Judging from the undisturbed crop rows in the immediate vicinity of the crash site, there was almost no lateral movement of the C-205 at impact.The photos of the DC-3 crash site reveal little or no terrain disturbance beyond the wreckage itself, indicating a vertical descent.Lack of longitudinal crushing of the fuselage, nacelles and wings indicate to me that the DC-3 impacted in a flat attitude.
The only thing I can think of that would cause a DC-3 to enter a flat spin on approach to landing would be the loss of an engine and the inability to feather the prop of the dead engine. This is what wrench1 reported in his Post #31 above.A windmilling prop offers much more drag than a feathered one, so VMC with a windmilling prop would be significantly higher than that with a feathered prop.Combine that with the likelihood that the DC-3 PF (Pilot Flying) was carrying a lot of power on the good engine, just to stay in the air, sets them up for tragedy.As Eric Janson points out in his Post #32 above, a controlled descent into terrain would have been possible if power to the good engine had been quickly cut.I have less than 10 hours in the DC-3; therefore, I know next to nothing about the airplane, but the old “Goon” (“Gooney Bird”) is a solid airplane with no reputation of biting the pilots in the butt by being overly touchy.I think that the instinct of most pilots is to keep the airplane in the air, but the inability to feather a prop of a twin engine airplane is a game changer.
The way the wreckage sits when viewed in the ground level photo, indicates to me that the DC-3 was in a right-hand flat spin when it impacted, indicating that it was the No. 2 engine that failed (speculation on my part).
Last edited by capngrog; 13th Mar 2019 at 21:51. Reason: clean up paragraphs
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMERDISCLAIMER I am not an expert on much of anything that really matters and am not current on any aircraft type.
A couple of decades ago, I was a designated Party to an NTSB investigation into the crash of a Cessna 205. The aircraft entered a spin at approximately 3,000 ft. AGL.This spin developed into a flat spin with a nearly vertical descent into a cultivated farm field.All aboard the aircraft were killed by the impact, and an ensuing fire consumed most of the fuselage.The wreckage array of the Laser DC-3 reminds me very much of the array of the wreckage of the C-205.Judging from the undisturbed crop rows in the immediate vicinity of the crash site, there was almost no lateral movement of the C-205 at impact.The photos of the DC-3 crash site reveal little or no terrain disturbance beyond the wreckage itself, indicating a vertical descent.Lack of longitudinal crushing of the fuselage, nacelles and wings indicate to me that the DC-3 impacted in a flat attitude.
The only thing I can think of that would cause a DC-3 to enter a flat spin on approach to landing would be the loss of an engine and the inability to feather the prop of the dead engine. This is what wrench1 reported in his Post #31 above.A windmilling prop offers much more drag than a feathered one, so VMC with a windmilling prop would be significantly higher than that with a feathered prop.Combine that with the likelihood that the DC-3 PF (Pilot Flying) was carrying a lot of power on the good engine, just to stay in the air, sets them up for tragedy.As Eric Janson points out in his Post #32 above, a controlled descent into terrain would have been possible if power to the good engine had been quickly cut.I have less than 10 hours in the DC-3; therefore, I know next to nothing about the airplane, but the old “Goon” (“Gooney Bird”) is a solid airplane with no reputation of biting the pilots in the butt by being overly touchy.I think that the instinct of most pilots is to keep the airplane in the air, but the inability to feather a prop of a twin engine airplane is a game changer.
The way the wreckage sits when viewed in the ground level photo, indicates to me that the DC-3 was in a right-hand flat spin when it impacted, indicating that it was the No. 2 engine that failed (speculation on my part).
A couple of decades ago, I was a designated Party to an NTSB investigation into the crash of a Cessna 205. The aircraft entered a spin at approximately 3,000 ft. AGL.This spin developed into a flat spin with a nearly vertical descent into a cultivated farm field.All aboard the aircraft were killed by the impact, and an ensuing fire consumed most of the fuselage.The wreckage array of the Laser DC-3 reminds me very much of the array of the wreckage of the C-205.Judging from the undisturbed crop rows in the immediate vicinity of the crash site, there was almost no lateral movement of the C-205 at impact.The photos of the DC-3 crash site reveal little or no terrain disturbance beyond the wreckage itself, indicating a vertical descent.Lack of longitudinal crushing of the fuselage, nacelles and wings indicate to me that the DC-3 impacted in a flat attitude.
The only thing I can think of that would cause a DC-3 to enter a flat spin on approach to landing would be the loss of an engine and the inability to feather the prop of the dead engine. This is what wrench1 reported in his Post #31 above.A windmilling prop offers much more drag than a feathered one, so VMC with a windmilling prop would be significantly higher than that with a feathered prop.Combine that with the likelihood that the DC-3 PF (Pilot Flying) was carrying a lot of power on the good engine, just to stay in the air, sets them up for tragedy.As Eric Janson points out in his Post #32 above, a controlled descent into terrain would have been possible if power to the good engine had been quickly cut.I have less than 10 hours in the DC-3; therefore, I know next to nothing about the airplane, but the old “Goon” (“Gooney Bird”) is a solid airplane with no reputation of biting the pilots in the butt by being overly touchy.I think that the instinct of most pilots is to keep the airplane in the air, but the inability to feather a prop of a twin engine airplane is a game changer.
The way the wreckage sits when viewed in the ground level photo, indicates to me that the DC-3 was in a right-hand flat spin when it impacted, indicating that it was the No. 2 engine that failed (speculation on my part).
Left throttle mixture and prop in shutdownwn position, right hand throttle bend outward to the right at about mid position...pilots hand on impact forced the bend. While bodies in this DC 3 are charred by fire, they will still give us additional cues. I have always loved radials, was on DC 6 and 7's in Central America.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Paisley, Florida USA
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, there's not a modern equivalent that can provide the same services, at the same costs, and operate out of the same environment. And you don't need to go to SA to see it. Old radial powered aircraft dominate the off-grid (unimproved runway) scene in Alaska and parts of Canada. Most heavy fuel and freight deliveries are currently handled by DC-3, DC-6, and C-47 aircraft. The only manufacturer I'm aware of that has designed and built a more modern off-grid aircraft is Pilatus with the PC12 and PC24, but it can't haul what the old ones haul.
As to the 208 and Twotter, they just don't cut it with a load of 6"x6"x16' beams like a DC-3 can. Haven't seen any Caribous flying around, but we had a CASA 212 and a DC-6 make a stop this past summer. There's several L-382s around for the really big stuff, but I believe they don't run with gravel kits anymore and won't land on unimproved strips. I also heard of a CV-240 operating.
Actually, there's not a modern equivalent that can provide the same services, at the same costs, and operate out of the same environment. And you don't need to go to SA to see it. Old radial powered aircraft dominate the off-grid (unimproved runway) scene in Alaska and parts of Canada. Most heavy fuel and freight deliveries are currently handled by DC-3, DC-6, and C-47 aircraft. The only manufacturer I'm aware of that has designed and built a more modern off-grid aircraft is Pilatus with the PC12 and PC24, but it can't haul what the old ones haul.
