crashed

[N5ZX]

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

[WebMaster]

good post, Cole.
Keep them coming

[oldyuki]

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?) ..

[Skymaster337B]

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

[tropical]

Originally Posted by Skymaster337B

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

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

[oldyuki]

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.

[Roger]

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.