corvairkr Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Sad news out of the states today with the Sonex factory demonstrator crashing with 2 on board ....I believe this aircraft had the new Aerovee turbo installed. There doesn't appear to be to much damage to the prop...maybe an forced landing without power ? http://fox11online.com/2015/06/02/plane-crashes-at-wittman-regional-airport/ Jason 1
Guest asmol Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 It was Sonex Aircraft CEO Jeremy Monnett, crashed into one of those military trucks and him and co-pilot didnt survive. Plane was destroyed, split open like a can of beans!
facthunter Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Sad. hitting something real solid doesn't help survival. Nev
Guest ozzie Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 If you have been to Oshkosh you will have seen acres of those military trucks opposite the flight line. The Sonex factory is near there as well. Wonder what the future will hold for them now. Definitely no factory tours at this years Airventure that is only a few weeks away i suppose. Sad to see another mover and shaker of the homebuilt world gone.
gandalph Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 It was Sonex Aircraft CEO Jeremy Monnett, crashed into one of those military trucks and him and co-pilot didnt survive. Plane was destroyed, split open like a can of beans! Has that been confirmed Asmol? News reports said it was a Hornet's Nest plane registered to Jeremy but do we know for sure who was in it? 1
Guest asmol Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 unfortunately yes. Its Johns son Jeremy ANN can now report that Sonex Aircraft CEO Jeremy Monnett, has been confirmed as lost in the crash of N123SX, identified in records as a 2007 Sonex SA. The other person onboard, also reported to have died in the accident, has yet to be officially identified and we will bring that info to you when able. Needless to say, this is a punch to the gut for the close-knit family of sportplane pilots and fans in Oshkosh and ANN sends it prayers and support to the Monnet family, everyone else at Sonex, and the extended family of Sonex builders and flyers all over the globe. Original Story-1816 ET, 06.02.15: There is no way to sugar coat bad news and it appears that some really bad news is in the making. ANN is monitoring reports of a company Sonex two place experimental aircraft that apparently went down at Wittman Field, Tuesday afternoon, impacting among the military vehicles at Oshkosh Co
alf jessup Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 gandalph, On the Sonex site it confirms it was Jeremy from what I read, still haven't released the Pax name. Alf 1
pmccarthy Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 I am pretty sure that the Breezy fatal crash at Airventure last year also crashed into one of those trucks.
gandalph Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Thanks Asmol. That's very sad news. A great blow for aviation innovation. 3
Downunder Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Looks like it was straight into those vehicles. http://www.thenorthwestern.com/story/news/local/2015/06/02/plane-crash-oshkosh/28370861/
Guest SrPilot Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 unfortunately yes. Its Johns son Jeremy ANN can now report that Sonex Aircraft CEO Jeremy Monnett, has been confirmed as lost in the crash The other person was a Sonex maintenance technician. http://www.thenorthwestern.com/story/news/local/2015/06/03/sonex-aircraft-ceo-mechanic-die/28406575/ Sad day, for sure.
pmccarthy Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 This was the Breezy crash last year. Similar scene.
Downunder Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Just looking at google earth. Really surprised the let the vehicles be stored right next to runway 31, opposite the sonex factory. Not sure exactly where they crashed but the vehicles being that close doesn't look good.
gandalph Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Just looking at google earth.Really surprised the let the vehicles be stored right next to runway 31, opposite the sonex factory. Not sure exactly where they crashed but the vehicles being that close doesn't look good. And on final for 37 , 27 & 22! No safe undershoot area at all. Too many tigers too close to those approaches 1
Guest SrPilot Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Really surprised the let the vehicles be stored right next to runway 31, opposite the sonex factory.Not sure exactly where they crashed but the vehicles being that close doesn't look good. Unfortunately, open fields seem to beg for use as storage areas; available and maybe cheap. I have seen several airfields where significant numbers of mobile homes, trailers, trucks, etc were parked in what otherwise would have been open land on or adjacent to the airport property. Details remain a mite sketchy, but the news indicates an incident while landing on runway 31. Here is a TV news account from the area. Not much new in it though. http://wbay.com/2015/06/02/plane-crash-in-oshkosh/ Google Earth location of crash area: 43°59'08.44" N 88°33'08.13" W
Guest SrPilot Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 I just watched a video of Jeremy Monnet demonstrating the turbo engine in the Sonex Acro - the one that crashed N123SX - in the pattern area of runway 27 at Oshkosh. He was having a blast. The airplane is quite a performer and he was demonstrating that performance. E.g., 205 mph on final with a Vne around 197(?). He said to leave the 205 to the experts - "don't try this at home." It's a very nice video; it's always nice to watch someone have so much fun . . . except the event this week put everything in a totally different perspective. Knowing of the crash, the video was viewed with an entirely different mindset. I wanted to see the plane in operation to get some idea about how things could have gone so wrong. I am left with nothing but speculation about what might have happened. In the video, I saw what appeared to me to be a very competent pilot flying a high-performance airplane (especially considering size and engine power) in a very familiar area and demonstrating confidence and expertise in flying the very airplane in the very area where such a tragedy occurred. If you want to see Jeremy having fun and a plane performing well and seemingly exactly as expected, below is the link to the site. The video is on the page. http://www.aeroconversions.com/
JG3 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 http://www.aeroconversions.com/[/url] Some very incautious flying in there..... Long, low approaches over water and the industrial estate. If an engine failure nowhere to go.... And not necessary, as the last approach demonstrated, with a steep approach from altitude, and could always make the runway if engine stopped.... 1
Guest SrPilot Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Some very incautious flying in there..... Long, low approaches over water and the industrial estate. If an engine failure nowhere to go.... And not necessary, as the last approach demonstrated, with a steep approach from altitude, and could always make the runway if engine stopped.... Well, I do not like to drag one in for landing myself. (Although I guess 205 on final for a low approach cannot be called "dragging one in"). I prefer being able to make the runway should the engine quit. It may be that at the speeds he was using he felt he could trade speed for altitude/distance. I do not know the airplane. When I had my RV-3A, people would ask about my high(er) approaches. The query always interested me. With the approach, I could make the runway even if the engine quit, and I always was able to put the plane down where I wanted on the field. So, why not? I have had two engines quit while on final (not in the RV -- once while instructing, once on my own) and made the runway both times. (Neither involved fuel exhaustion or pilot error - electrical malfunction on one, engine fault on the other). A bit higher approach? Why not? Even short field landings can be made with flaps, slips, slower speeds, etc, and if there are obstacles at the end, better yet. But I have no idea of what went wrong in the fatal crash. It may have had nothing to do with high speed flybys or low approaches. The aircraft looked reasonably intact. I've seen much worse in terms of aircraft damage.
winsor68 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I wonder whether the cameras and data loggers were mounted and running during the accident?
winsor68 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I wonder whether the cameras and data loggers were mounted and running during the accident? I take that back... this was a crash....not an accident.
Guest SrPilot Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I wonder whether the cameras and data loggers were mounted and running during the accident? An interesting point. If such devices were on board and operating during the approach and the crash sequence - especially if the sound recording feature was on, the reconstruction and analysis should be much easier tasks.
Ron5335 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 SrPilot, Thanks for the link, although it did send a shiver down the spine..... to see someone totally in control, while flying his aircraft towards the upper end of it's limits, and making it look as though he was out on the expressway in a car having a leisurely drive. Then to compare that, to what happened, it almost incomprehensible !! especially when you factor in that there was another person in the aircraft who was just as experienced
K-man Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 SrPilot,Thanks for the link, although it did send a shiver down the spine..... to see someone totally in control, while flying his aircraft towards the upper end of it's limits, and making it look as though he was out on the expressway in a car having a leisurely drive. Then to compare that, to what happened, it almost incomprehensible !! especially when you factor in that there was another person in the aircraft who was just as experienced I think it needs to be taken in perspective. You see other aircraft coming in at much higher speeds to do a low pass without a question. In this instance it was to at a speed at or around Vne. In many cases Vne is an arbitrary figure. From memory, it is either 80% of the speed at which flutter was detected or if no flutter was detected 90% of the maximum speed tested without flutter occurring, that speed being IAS, not TAS (unless otherwise advised as in a couple of aircraft including Pipistrel gliders). Only Sonex would know what the true capabilities of that aircraft are, but in the video, with calm conditions, he was actually flying at least 15 mph slower that the tested speed and he did say for others not to fly at that speed. Now having said that, there is nothing to indicate that he was flying fast when this crash occurred. In fact, the aircraft was pretty much intact and that would mean probably a low speed crash. Hopefully it wasn't engine failure.
aj_richo Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 From the NTSB Preliminary Report - so we keep to the known facts, and not the usual BS. NTSB Identification: CEN15FA249 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation Accident occurred Tuesday, June 02, 2015 in Oshkosh, WI Aircraft: MONNETT JOHN T JR SONEX SA, registration: N123SX Injuries: 2 Fatal. This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report. On June 2, 2015, about 1520 central daylight time, a Monnett Sonex SA experimental amateur-built airplane, N123SX, impacted unoccupied vehicles, after departing the Wittman Regional Airport (OSH), Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Both private pilots were fatally injured. The airplane was substantially damaged. The airplane was registered to and operated by Sonex Aircraft LLC, under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight which operated without a flight plan. The local flight was originating at the time of the accident. According to OSH tower personnel, the airplane departed runway 9 from the intersection of runway 9 and runway 13. After clearing the airplane for takeoff, the tower controller focused their attention on inbound traffic and did not witness the accident. The accident site was located 0.25 miles east-northeast of the departure end of runway 9. The airplane came to rest on unoccupied vehicles located on Oshkosh Corporation's property on a general heading of 220 degrees. The engine separated from the airplane and was located on the ground in front of the airplane. All major components remained attached to the airplane. The airplane was transported to a secure facility for further examination.
aj_richo Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 It's also been stated elsewhere that the available runway for the intersection departure was approximately 3000'
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now