|
|
|
|
#2
02-26-10, 10:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I was discussing this today with a friend who is a chief metallurgist for P&W, and he mentioned something that puts this into perspective, ie. apparently the bobsleds running at the olympics are pulling 5.2G's going 90mph in a lateral turn.
Think about that for a moment, and then consider that for this crash the guy was doing over twice that speed and his G inducing pull was vertical ! I don't know the math on this, because we can't calculate the "unknown pull-up" but I can certainly see how easy it would be to snap a piece of wing off given what we believe occured. Anybody want to bet a $100- burger that the word corrosion never comes up in the final report? "watch this" 
|
|
#3
02-27-10, 12:24 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
First and foremost...like everyone here.... I mean absolutely disrespect to the lost lives. I did not know them and I can only assume that they were very similar to me...love flying...enjoying life...everything was fun...until someone got hurt. S--- Happens. My gripe comes from the uninformed pundants blaming the airplane. The machine did its job.
This is all cessna needed to tighten the noose on their supplimental inspection extortion. Naturally there is no mention in the media (even the aviation media) of the fact that the accident aircraft had an OUTBOARD wing failure.....no-where near the wing-root that is the subject of the inspection. There is no mention in the articles that the left seat was a visiting pilot from Poland, the right seat (PIC) was a 2200hr ATP. The three pax were the children of the left-seater There were three other family members on the ground watching the take-off The plane was modified to larger 300hp engines and 3-blade props ( hinting that the owner liked "performance"...certainly not a crime or even remotely a "bad thing" but its an important piece of the puzzle) The plane was modified with extended tip-tanks (exactly like mine) which when empty reduces max maneuvering speed to 143kts ... at altitude...interpret that as reduced air density = reduced drag. Ergo, at lower altitudes or colder atmospheric conditions...greater desity....more resistance....even lower Max Maneuvering Speed) The plane took off (90kts), retracted gear) climbed to pattern alt ( 100kts) turned downwind (125kts @ 900' msl) turned base (140kts) decended on final, flaps up, gear up, (155kts) leveled off 50' agl (165kts) nosed up sharply at the far end if the runway (171kts) At which time the right wing tip snapped off and the plane rolled into the ground....but stayed significantly intact I'm no accident investigator, but I interpret all that as a pilot doing an impromptu airshow for visiting friends...no problem...until you exceed the placarded performance limitations of your tip-extensions. Then s--- happens and you go from pilot to farmer in about...3 seconds. But since the words "skymaster" and "wing" are used in the same article, it's a foregone conclusion that the 337 fleet should just go ahead and start lubing-up in preperation for cessena's regulatory boon-doggle. The articles also don't mention that in the 2000+ production aircraft in 40+ years of military and civilian flights (including the rollercoaster rides of being an FAC "hedge runner").....not one has had the failure that the new inspection is supposed to address. Oh well....I'm justglad that the supplimental inspection is SUPPOSED to be for commercial operators ..... For now.... But we are all waiting for the other shoe to drop. I know I preaching to the choir and I'm still a new comer around here. But it just infuriates me to have the media implying it was the airplanes fault. I absolutely LOVE my skymaster. I did years of research that lead me to it. I've read and summarized every single 337 accident on file with the NTSB and I've made cross comparison charts with other types. The SkyMaster isnt perfect, but it is a DARN good plane if it is used properly...and is very forgiving if it is used improperly. But everything has its limits. And it irritates the crap out of me that an unfortunate event resulted in the death of 5....tragedy for their families and friend....and will almost certainly have profound, possibly devistating results on the rest of us, too. Again, no disrespect for the dead or their families. But, again, assuming he was anything like me, he would be the first to say "I was having fun and didnt pay attention to my airspeed...and it caught up with me. It wasn't the plane's fault...it was the PILOT IN COMMAND." Just my rookie opinion, and probably not a very popular opinion. Cole Reed
|
|
#5
02-27-10, 10:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#6
02-27-10, 11:04 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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
|
|
#8
02-27-10, 07:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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?) ..
|
Hybrid Mode
