Just curious about your the extended fuel cells, are these the Flint model units?

Actually N5ZX, there was a bit of local coverage in the Asbury Park Press and Newark Star Ledger regarding the followup and "human interest" portions of this story. Some points are and will always be open I'm sure, such as who was flying the plane since the owner "Jack", was in the left seat, but "George", who had all of the ratings was in the right seat? Wojciech (George), was also an instructor at Trenton-Robbinsville and there was no reported or known relationship other than the other three passengers, Andrew Zajaczkowski and his son along with a young cousin were friends of the owner.

The problem is that much of this appears in the electronic media, that is, on the web pages, and then goes off into the blue a few minutes after "publication". For instance, on NJ.com .... type in "polish boxer" and there is an article on a boxing champ who turned down a seat on the flight.

I'm not a member of the press, but have been doing a follow up for a friend who covered the story and we came to essentially the same conclusions. I had some questions regarding "177" and the fact via the NTSB, that he took on 90 gallons.

I have tip extensions from Owen Bell's "Aviation Enterprises" as with his winglets and tail boom fairings, air conditioner, etc. I see that there is a winglet in the accident plane's wreckage, and mention of tip-tanks in the NTSB report, along with mention of the engine upgrades (possible sky rocket conversion).

My tip extensions only add 2' to each side, giving me a total wingspan of 44'6" (including the winglet / stol droop assembly thingie) the NTSB says that the seperated section was 6', implying that the extended tip was intact and actually survived the impact of that seperated section coming to rest.

I make no pretense of being an expert. I dont believe in the term "expert" since (in theory) we are always learning....which means there is a great deal out there that we dont know. Much of what I say is simply me talking though my thought processes in hope that others will point out thinking errors which might keep me from duplicating the results.

OldYuki, I was absolutely not referring to any prior message from you (or any other memeber). Admittedly I am at fault of abusing the forum and simply using it as a venue for random bitching....I hadnt even taken the time to read the other entries. My appologies for the generalized rant.

But I live in Austin, and have had to suffer through rampant misinformation concerning the idiot who rammed the office building with his cherokee. Way too much rush to "scoop the story" not enough effort to check the facts.

In your case, OldYuki, I applaud your efforts and to seek out answers and wish that others in the media industry shared your professional ethic.

I also thought it was odd for the accident plane to put-on 90 gallons (3 hours) of fuel for what the family said was to be a local sight-seeing flight. I think this implies that there was possibly not much fuel on board before fueling. I speculate that would increase the "zero fuel weight" leverage effect, combined with the added lift on the wing tips....means lots of force being applied in the middle. Low density altitude increases aerodynamic drag...further increasing the forces at play.

Again, I never want anyone to think I was implying that either of the front seaters were "bad pilots". They were having fun, enjoying their lives, and enjoying their plane. They just APPEAR to have played on the wrong side of the safety envelope. We'll know more next year when the NTSB makes their final report.

For now....I think I'll just keep my numbers within the placarded limits. When all else fails....read the instructions.

Thanks all, and I appologize again for my ranting.

I am usually MUCH more restrained, but am easily flustered when folks (outsiders) make assumptions that this supports Cessna's agenda and derails the argument against their sudden interest in our fleet.

Cole

good post, Cole.
Keep them coming

thanks ..
 

Cole, I sure didn't take any offense at that at all and I know where it's coming from indeed. Media off the shelf and "out of the can" comments" like ... "the flight from an uncontrolled airport" ... or ... "the pilot failed to file a flight plan" ... things like this indeed will light my short fuse.

My friend will most likely be asked to do the follow up on this story and he just wants to get thing right and know what questions to ask or .. not to ask.

All of the data that may or may not factor has had us scratching our collective .. things like the fuel, STOL and lastly the mod to 300 hp .. or the report that he took on 90 gallons. Well, it's way beyond "common knowledge" for the average Joe.

Great forum and a great crew .... so thanks again .... going to the source, the guys who own and love these ships (is my envy is showing?) ..

One thing for sure, the FAA will blame the pilot.

The NTSB will. The FAA only supplies information used in the investigation.

It seems that he may have had the plane up for sale. There is a web site that has all of the specifics .... http://www.jackairllc.com .. and though the full content has been removed, the "cached" information in the form of the text is still fully stored.

It lists things like spoilers, max speed of 300 mph, TSIO-520-NB (300hp ??), Flint tip tanks and a fuel capacity of 163 gallons.

How would the combination of horsepower (he lists the top speed as 300), and things like the spoilers affect the aircraft. Here, I get fully lost; wouldn't it be SOP to have the spoilers out for a descent? The interplay between the engine mods and the tip tank/STOL mods?

You folks will understand what he had and it sounds like there was little held back in building this ship with the electronics like a stormscope etc.

The posted link did not work ... but ... just Google in .... riley super skyrocket .... and it will be a few from the top and you can see the jackairllc tag .. hitting the cached feature will bring up the text.

You wouldn't use spoilers or speed brakes from a starting altitude of 1400' in a "watch this" dive. You would use them in a controlled descent from altitude to avoid overspeed. I am not familiar with the Rocket, but isn't the 300+/-mph an issue of 2% speed gain per 1000' and it flys at 30,000 feet, thereby increasing the groundspeed but not the IAS? I can't imagine that the Rocket has significantly different operating parameters than a regular of pressurized 337.

The advertising of the Super SkyRocket said max speed 300 MPH, cruise speed 250 MPH, that was all at 20,000 feet. On an ISA day, flat out, you could achieve a true air speed of 300, they said. No one would fly flat out, for more than 5 minutes, at any altitude. The cruise, again, was at 75% power, and again at 20,000, oh and at medium weight.

That all translates to advertising stuff, and the theory that as altitude is gained, resistance is lessened.

I enjoy the following performance numbers form my super skyrocket, N374DN:
16000 nominal, 30" M.P., 2300 RPM, 1480 TIT, 118 PPH/Engine, OAT "0" C,
= 205 --- 210 Knots @ +/_ 4700 Lbs. T.O. Weight ..

thank you
 

an honest answer from someone who knows, and has one.

Far better than those of us who only speculate.
Do you have de-ice boots?

PS The P337 is limited to 20,000 ft. Out of safety I presume since it should be capable of 30,000 as is the T337. My guess is that they didn't want 337 pilots of pressurized aircraft to have to have the skills of a jet jocky in case of depressurization.

Dave Dillehay
N84E

You're on the right track. My understanding is the 20K limit was based on "newer" certification requirements back in the early 70's. But you're right, the airplane could fly higher, but not maintain cabin pressure, so in the eyes of the FAA its service ceiling is 20K.

My airplane, N374DN, best altitude after operation at several altitudes from 14 to 22,000 without a doubt is 16,000 nominal ... I'm sure the wing extensions from Owen Bell would greatly improve performance above FL 18,000 ...

Jack

Regrettably, I've flown FL180, FL190, FL200 only a couple of times.

I have the various wing mods from Owen Bell and I loved the performance.

I was putting along at about 175KIA , 22GPH (combined). roughly 70% power on 1500hr engines.

I've since hung zero-hour rebuilds on front and rear and 3-blade composits and cant wait to get past my break-in so I can go up and check my numbers.

I have no other skymaster experience, so I cannot say if this is an improvement or not.

But I like it....a LOT.
Cole

I am really interested in the MT props ... Their performance comparison ...
From your picture, it appears you have the wing tip extensions ? Bet that is quite an improvement at altitude ...
One of the drawbacks to the Riley is weight .. Thus, the normal 337 wing gets pretty tired at altitudes above 16,000 ... My airplane ...
If I had a lot of years remaining to fly, and as much as I enjoy my 337, I would install the mod ...
Probably going to sell 74DN this year ..

Jack

Ground Effect and the Crash?
 

A discussion with another old Skymaster pilot raised an interesting discussion point on the impact of ground effect.

An aircraft flying at or very nearly at Vne, descending into ground effect, would see the airspeed increase as the wing became more efficient, with the concurrent reduction in induced drag, assuming the power setting remained constant.

A second point is whether there is any impact on the loads and stresses if an aircraft enters into ground effect in a bank -- i.e., one wing is in ground effect, while the other is not.

I don't know if the load changes related to ground effect have ever been studied AT HIGH SPEEDS. Does anyone have knowledge of that?

To my knowledge, ground effect research is typically focused on low speed impacts, improvements in the efficiency of the wing while in ground effect at the extremes of the envelope (meaning that the aircraft is able to fly in ground effect at an extreme weight or temperature, but is beyond the envelope and unable to climb out of ground effect until sufficient weight of fuel is burned off, etc.).

And so ... we separate the proverbial men from the boys. I know, I know, just go sit in the corner and keep quiet.

:rolleyes::)

I did my first aerobatic - upset training today and the instructor was explaining to me how in a banked dive when attempting to pull up, the "up wing" is loaded with about 50% more G's than the lower wing. He went on to explain how in most accidents where a plane breaks up in the clouds, they usually find the outboard last 3 feet of one wing, about two miles back in the flight path. This because when the pilot tries to pull up and out of his dive/spin, the up wing usually break away at the end due to the over-G.

The insturctor knows his stuff, and trains upset for both the Army and Navy.

I asked him then if he had read the Skymaster crash in NJ, which he said he did. His opinion was that it was a banked turn / pull up that over stress the higher wing.

Meanwhile upset training was the most fun I've had in years :)

I had to think about that for a moment and where the forces are on the wing, but he is right. The up wing has the downward alerion deflection, so that part of the wing has the higher angle of attack and higher loading. Augh... you're taking me back to my aerodynamics classes. :-)

Karl

Questions:
The accident A/C was using rwy 32.

The debris field was distributed along a 360 heading from the departure end of the rwy indicating a right deviation from a 320 rwy heading...right wing was lower than left (right bank).

The right wing tip seperated from the right wing and seems to have peeled up and rolled over the fuselage, impacting the rear engine nacelle. This would seem to indicate that the bottom of the wing was the "leading edge", otherwise wouldnt the seperated portion have impacted further back on the A/C...like on the tail boom, etc.

The NTSB preliminary report says that the right wing spars show indications of DOWNWARD bending...the seperated portion folded UP and over....what could cause that?

The plane flew a perfect, pattern. Descended at an unacceptable speed with Flaps and gear up and spoiler apparently not deployed...they were TRYING to go fast.
15:44:19 332* 900' 120kts....I normally climb at 100
15:44:50 240* 1100' 137kts....I normally do cross-wind at about 110
15:46:50 156* 1400' 148kts....I normally start slowing to 100 around mid-field..
15:47:00 062* 600' 171kts....My base-leg is 100... 100 on final...90 over the fence....80 on the numbers (or somewhere there-abouts).

The last radar return had them on Base-leg at 600' msl (450' above Field Elevation) at 171kts and accelerating.

Max maneuvering speed for a "normal" P337 is 155kts. Max Maneuver for the Aviation Enterprises wing tip extension tanks (if empty) is placarded at 125kts.

And to make a 90 degree turn and descend 800' in 10 seconds (according to the radar sweeps) sounds like "abrupt maneuvers" to me.

Could this HARD left descending turn (forcing the right wing up) have flexed the right tip downward.... bending the spar, weakening it but still allowing the pilot to maintain the controlled high-speed low pass along the rwy until he pulled up "sharply" and the weakened spars gave-way?

Certainly not arm-chair quarterbacking....just trying to get my head around the physics and aerodynamics and yall seem to be excellent resources.

Thoughts?
Cole

As I have stated in an earlier message, my super skyrocket, 374DN, @ 32" M.P., 2400 RPM, @ 2000 feet MSL, nose down 200 FPM, @ 1000 feet MSL = RED LINE [VNE]
OAT = 85 F, DP 52, SMOOTH AIR, dead still ...

Jack

I was looking at Cessna Skymaster Videos on U-tube and came across a video of someone making a high speed low pass. I noticed that the aircraft made a sharp turn close to the ground before the pass. I wondered if this is what the pilot was trying to do when the accident occured.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3KyePDEoQQ

Karl

Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin
 

Just got this from our left coast contributor

Those of you with winglets and or tip tanks should read this.

Cessna News Letter
 

There is a reference to Cessna Service Newsletter SNL06-6, FAA Approved Supplemental Type Certificates (STC’s) and FAA-PMA Approved Parts.
I am attaching the News Letter

It's interesting to note, that in 2006, they were developing SIDs.

Oops
 

There's an oops here.
The model referenced in the statements is a T336G, when in fact the accident aircraft was a T337G. Seems a lot of people missed that.

Crash
 

I have already recieved a service bulletin from the FAA concerning this crash. It states the failure at station 150 in wing. They stated every one should check if you had the modification of wing extention with fuel tanks and winglets installed. They want you to check ribs, check for wrinkled skin beyond station 150 and check for smoking rivots. The crashed 337 was a G model. I was wondering if on the models G and H that have 148-150 gallon tanks you have more weight on end of wing. Do the earlier models before G have more ribs in wing at that point were the factory installed the standard 150 gallon tanks. The more weight you hang on the end of wing the more stress it adds beyond the strut support. The aircraft that crashed also had the 550 engines with turbos capable of more power and with 2 of these engines weighing over 700 pounds more that my IO-360. Add wing extension with tanks that might be full, winglets and 5 people. He was at or over gross weight. You do the math.

Dale,
The NTSB report indicates the wing severed at WS 177 not 150. The Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) mentioned WS 150 for inspection. 150 is the aileron attachment point and 177 is outboard one rib.

The incident aircraft was a Riley Super Sky Rocket which had the TSIO-520's not the 550's. These were rated at 300 HP each.


All,
Just a point about the SAIB, if anyone has the extended wing fuel tanks and / or the winglets make sure you inspect the areas described in the SAIB above. I suggest that you do it sooner rather than later to make sure there is no indication of potential issues as the SAIB points out.

I have just completed my annual and I have the winglets but DO NOT have extended wing fuel tanks. While performing the annual this year I had a copy of the 23 SID's that Cessna is proposing and a copy of the NTSB report on the incident aircraft in New Jersey. I can say that this annual inspection was the most thorough inspection that I have ever done. With the SID's in mind, it created a better and more thorough desire to look harder at components. With the NTSB report I was concerned about the incident with the wing and made sure that a closer inspection of those areas were covered. The first flight after the annual was Monday and the SAIB was published Tuesday. Craig and I went back to the aircraft and checked all the items on the SAIB. Everything checked ok. So if you have these mods check the areas on the SAIB.

Here is a quote from the SAIB about the incident aircraft:
The subsequent investigation revealed there have also been reports from the field of wrinkled skins,
working rivets, cracks, and loose wing tips.

This concerns me, make sure you check your aircraft for these items. Even if you don't have the mods it wouldn't hurt to take a few minutes to look this on your aircraft.

AE service letter
 

Here is the Aviation Enterprises Service Letter.
It only applies to those aircraft with extended wing fuel tanks.

I was at my IA's hanger today as my planes annual is being finished, and I asked him if my plane experienced any discrepancies as related to "The SIDS of the week". He laughed and said don't be ridiculous. However I don't have any mods, except micro-VG's which are for goring slower, not faster.

I then asked him what a "smoked rivet" looked like. So he had me climb under the wing of a beautiful AeroStar that was in the shop and every single wing spar rivet had a 3" smoke trail behind it.

I think I will stick with my un-modified skymaster.

It makes me wonder what "data" was produced and accepted for these wingtip extensions and goofy looking winglets, and if there was any real aerodynamic engineering involved.

I'm not an owner nor have I ever flown in a 337. My interest in this case is a somewhat personal one as a mutual non-flying friend had introduced me to the person that was in the right seat, who I only knew by his Polish nickname as Wojtek, pronounced voitek. I flew with him twice when he was still a student pilot. My friend called me this week to tell me that that was the guy I flew with some 12 yrs ago. At the risk of being accused of and flamed for kicking the dead in their grave and patting myself on the back at the same time, I do feel vindicated that I warned my friend not to fly with him. I know this guy piled on the ratings since I've flown with him, but it was his absurd rationalizations about what was possible, permissable that I found troubling, and for my friend's sake, I cautioned him not to fly with him.

I've read all of your posts on this thread and indeed you all seem like such good eggs that I felt compelled to write what I just wrote, for I could feel your collective concern about the airworthiness of your aircraft. 337'S have their issues, which plane doesn't, but I believe in this case there is just to much evidence of people who flaunted, played fast and loose, and thumbed their noses at the laws of physics. Weight limit? Zero fuel weight? If it fits it will lift it. V speeds? Why would they put all those numbers at the end of the A/S indicator, let's see what it's like, besides it's overbuilt 150%, let's have some fun! This kind of thinking can break an EXTRA, or a F-18 for that matter.

1. 15:46:50 the airplane was at 1,400 ft msl, on a heading of 156 degrees at a ground speed of 148 knots. Then just 10 seconds later 15:47:00, the airplane was at 600 ft msl, on a heading of 062 degrees at a ground speed of 171 knots. If this radar data is to be believed, that's dropping 800 ft, accelerating 23 kts while turning 94 degrees in 10 seconds with 5 people on board. Are you kidding me?

2. I'm having a tough time untangling the various V and weight limits, with all the different variants, stc, mods, etc., so I submit this for your perusal. I found this on FlightAware. N12NA's flight from KBTV Burlington, VT to 47N Central Jersey Regional on Sept, 2009. Don't know if someone knows how to get the winds aloft data for that day, but check it out. Note the ground speeds and what in my estimation seems like a dive bomber approach. From 16500ft to 2400ft in approx 30 miles, and 6 mins. Doesn't that seem excessive. Here's the track- http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N...259ZZ/KBTV/47N
Here's the radar log- http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N...V/47N/tracklog

One last thing before I step down from my soapbox, I love aviation. Been in it for 42yrs, 20yrs as a pilot. I felt very proud to have achieved that. Human nature being what it is, I believed that it showed a special sense of competence in an individual to be able to do this. It pisses me off when jokers come along with bird brained notions and make all of us flying look like one step above the village idiot, not to mention the loss of innocent people who place their lives in our trust. Great fun that it can be, it's an unforgiving hobby we've chosen. One fool and in this case maybe two and we all get a black eye. One last thing, last annual inspection was done Feb09. Maybe, if only, could of, might have caught a gremlin, but I think the only gremlins were in the two front seats.

Peace Out

Here's a picture of N12NA

Hotprop

Your handle implies one of two things: 1) IFR in the ice, or 2) like hot rod. After reading your message above I assume it's not #2.

Thanks for your input, I think the members came to that same conclusion based on the reports. Sad deal. The worst of it, as you have read, we are beating up our aircraft because of it. That's just part of the passion that we all share. We are concerned about what may have happened and if there is something wrong with the mod's or the airframe. I hope we can get through this without a lot of pain.

I wouldn't always rely on flightaware log. I have seen too many stray figures in my own flights.

Thanks for the photo, it was posted on the first page of the thread too.

Hotprop -

Before anyone starts jumping on you for your tell-it-like-it is message, let me heartily second your thoughts. Someone early in the thread made a comment that "The FAA [NTSB] will probably blame the pilot." Yes, they probably will because that's where the facts point, and beyond that, sadly, statistically that's where the fault usually lies.

I got into flying marine surveys doing some work for the (late) pilot in the NJ Skymaster fuel exhaustion accident. He was a nice guy and I liked him personally - but his operational pratices were loose at best, and they finally caught up with him.

To the point, they also unfortunately caught his innocent passengers, apparently like in this recent case of hot-dogging. My view is that everyone probably has the right to kill themselves in their airplanes...but they don't have any right to take innocent people with them, and there's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade when someone does.

Ahab

hharney
There is one more choice that non-flyers ask when they see the handle, "Are you in real estate?". NOOOOOOH! Saw it used in a/c classifieds, thought it would be a cool handle. :cool: Sorry about the redundant pic, thanks for the heads-up on FlightAware.
Even though in this case the blame, IMHO, rests on the shoulders of plane misuse, I can only be concerned about the tip tank winglet ext mod. Wrinkled skins and smoking rivets, never really a good thing, B-52's notwithstanding. You would think someone did the due diligence thing. I believe I'm not alone in thinking STC suggests something other than - Caveat Emptor. Watching the ' Owen Bell - Aviation Enterprises ' thread with interest, as I''m sure you all are.
jchronic
Thanks for your kind words of support. "Loose operational practices", that's a good nut shell. To many in the 'Count the wings, kick the tires, light the fires, thorough pre-flights are for wusses' camp out there. Respectively hope your handle is not implying a medical condition, In case, hope it's jcure real soon. :D

Thanks but, no, 'Chronic' is the family name, anglicized from some now obscure Germanic spelling. Why they picked that version, the family has wondered for years especially those of us who've had to listen to the smart comments from the medical people during physicals every year!

However, on that subject, I did recently have to have a pacemaker put in and for those who may be facing a medical recert process with the FAA, I'll be glad to share my experience, such as it's been so far. But that would be another thread......

Ahab

Update
 

There is an updated SAIB, from the FAA.
Thanks to our left coast contributor for bringing it to my attention
Also, there's an article on Aero News.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?C...-6c0f5a25b4a8&

Media Report