stinson onboard crash

[fly_tornado]

All survived, pilot suffered a broken jaw.

 

 

 

[Mick]

That's a horrible situation to end up in, with no option but to ride it in. I can't help but think the pilot may have made an earlier decision when the lack of performance was becoming apparent. I think he had a few opportunities to put down in much friendlier spots than where they eventually went down. Good to see all survived, shame to loose a nice old aeroplane though. A good mate of mine owns one of these, nice old bus!

 

 

[facthunter]

In a high altitude situation like that ( the plane was probably overweight anyhow) It is better to orbit around the aerodrome to get some height before going over the terrain where a safe landing is not likely. I doubt the plane had the performance to do it, and an experienced pilot would have aborted the take-off . Probably wouldn't have even started it.. They are lucky to be around.

 

IF the engine suffered a partial loss of power, after lift off, then my comments would not be so condemnatory. Did that happen? I don't know. Nev

 

 

[Bandit12]

Wow.....it's amazing just how quickly it all comes to a stop. You can see the high altitude effects - probably wasn't making as much power as was needed. Wiki suggests a 400kg payload at gross, but I'm tipping at that altitude it just wouldn't have been able to do it.

 

 

[rgmwa]

IF the engine suffered a partial loss of power, after lift off, then my comments would not be so condemnatory. Did that happen? I don't know. Nev

Someone on another forum noted that the mixture control appeared to be pushed forward to fully rich prior to takeoff and also after the crash, which probably would not have helped the power at that altitude.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[facthunter]

You can normally lean a motor of this type (Franklin?) when below 75% power. Even with full throttle at the height there you would be well under that figure , so it could have ben leaned out though just how much extra power it would have delivered is hard to determine as individual carburetters vary, and engines can run quite rich, and get away with it. I have been to twice that height with a carb that couldn't be leaned, but it would have done better if the leaning facilty was available, then. Nev

 

 

[JimG]

Utube have already pulled the longer version of this that shows the pilot laying on the ground in a semi conscious with some terrible facial injuries......not nice at all.

 

Lesson here for sure.

 

JimG

 

 

[seb7701]

I might be a little simple, but why would one persist with the flight when experiencing such poor climb/performance???

 

 

[facthunter]

Decision time was back there somewhere......... every take off should be planned.

 

I was going to mention this earlier. Pace the strip out and give yourself a place to be airborne with adequate performance, not pull it off in ground effect.. This has to be your decision point. If the plane doesn't appear to be performing well, stay on the ground. Close the throttle and use the brakes..Nev

 

 

[Thirsty]

Agreed nev. I wonder though, what pressure the pilot was under to continue with what is obviously a very marginal climb rate over very rugged looking terrain. Might have been simple bravado when surrounded by mates or maybe they had to be somewhere, who knows but the outcome was never in doubt in my opinion.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Light aircraft seem to be seriously lacking in head protection. They were very fortunate to survive that one.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I think you're on the money as usual FH, without going over the video again and again, I think there was a point when it was obvious the aircraft wasn't going to stick and he wnet about 3 or 4 seconds frozen in indecision, then it seems to come off but drops back again, and he still freezes instead of shutting it down, then there was an opportunity of fixing the obvious by a gentle turn over the meadow country.

 

Someone on here recently said preflight calculations using Density Height weren't important. On a trip to an airfield like this, that habit can be a killer.

 

It would be interesting to run the calculation of runway required at sea level, then feed in the altitude of this strip - say 6000 feet, and then continue to do the correct calculation be feeding in temperature which can often be more than we experience here. In Arizona you can see snow on the mountains, but be driving in 40 deg C.

 

Under these conditions runway length requirement can be waaaaay more than in your normal environment - step it out too, but these two tcalculation items will tell you whether you can go or not with your on board weight.

 

My take on it is maybe he was slack with his Performance and Operations and the altitude and perhaps temperature were the first factors.

 

The runway heading is towards the mountains, so the runway was uphill - factor 3

 

When he finally got it off the ground he WAS climbing........but so was the terrain, so the impression was there was something wrong with the aircraft, and maybe he thought it would pick up and opted not to turn, but the terrain pattern was no difference to what we have in Australia - you have a fixed rate of maximum climb on the day in an aircraft, and terrain rises more and more steeply towards mountains, so you don't aim at the mountains if you are experiencing a terrain clearance issue.

 

Good theory lesson here, I once experienced a situation where the aircraft was not going to outclimb trees and I couldn't turn - gives you a long time to think about your life!

 

 

[eightyknots]

Good theory lesson here, I once experienced a situation where the aircraft was not going to outclimb trees and I couldn't turn - gives you a long time to think about your life!

T-P: What did you do to survive this situation??

 

 

[Guest DJH]

A horror film for sure. The pilot no doubt regrets not aborting the take-off and leaving two persons behind for a return trip pick up. 20/20 hindsight etc.

 

They're all lucky to have survived that prang.

 

 

[J170 Owner]

Bad enough not to abort when he had the chance, but to fly into the trees without killing the engine, fuel and electrics is beyond me. Considering the state of the plane it is a wonder they all didn't end up shredded to bits.

 

 

[turboplanner]

T-P: What did you do to survive this situation??

It was on my first training area solo in a V115 Victa Airtourer and I'd previously completed my BAK theory, and I was sitting thinking there with my life flashing before me, remembering being freezing cold as a little boy, and thinking it was taking a long time to die when I remembered "the greatest rate of lift at the slowest forward speed is full flap"

 

Pulled on full flap and the nose climbed up the pine trees fast, and it was all over.

 

 

[eightyknots]

It was on my first training area solo in a V115 Victa Airtourer and I'd previously completed my BAK theory, and I was sitting thinking there with my life flashing before me, remembering being freezing cold as a little boy, and thinking it was taking a long time to die when I remember "the greatest rate of lift at the slowest forward speed is full flap"Pulled on full flap and the nose climbed up the pine trees fast, and it was all over.

....and you're still here to tell the tale. I'm happy that you were spared a calamitous outcome!

 

{Thanks for sharing Turbo}

 

 

[winsor68]

I am surprised at the number of experienced pilots who have had run in with Air Density... it is so easy for us to wonder what the Stinson pilot was thinking but I guess it shows that this is a very serious trap for the unwary.

 

I recall reading some figures in I believe an old Ra-Aus mag showing the effect of temperature and altitude on engine HP. Scary stuff!

 

 

[Eric McCandless]

I'm sorry if this is a silly question that I should already know the answer to.

 

Assuming the pilot had 1st stage of flap set for takeoff, in the situation he found himself, would it make the situation better or worse if he set 2nd stage of flap whilst trying to get airborne? Presumably you would have more lift, but also more drag.

 

 

[eightyknots]

Is poor take-off performance perhaps something inherent to Stinsons? I posted this video of a Stinson takeoff on another thread but it's worth repeating here as a comparison. Look at the right wing at 0:35 seconds :

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

Poor Stinson pilots.

 

Take off performance is take off performance, just ask Orville.

 

 

[Mick]

Is poor take-off performance perhaps something inherent to Stinsons?

I don't think that Stinsons are any more prone to poor take performance than any other old aircraft. Older aircraft may be more prone as over time all aircraft put on weight ( accumulated dirt, oil & grease ) and also older motors may not make their rated horsepower anymore.

 

As mentioned before I have a mate who has a Stinson 108 ( same as both these videos ), his was built in 1947. His take off performance is fine but he operates it wihin it's limits. I have been in the back seat of it with 2 guys in the front, all up we ( pilot & passengers ) weighed over 300kg. This meant we only had required fuel + reserves but we got off no problems at all. The Stinson is a classic aircraft that when treated right is a great fun machine.

 

 

[facthunter]

Most planes gain weight during their service lives and every dent makes more drag. The engines should not be down much on power if they are meeting the checks required for compression and serviced properly.An aircraft engine meets pretty defined criteria to be in acceptable condition to fly. Props can be a source of loss of power or actually THRUST if they are nicked dressed down or "tipped".. There's an old saying, 'Keep your prop as long as Possible for as long as possible. Nev