Guest Redair Posted June 26, 2009 Posted June 26, 2009 Sorry if this has been put up before, but it shows why it's not a good idea to film aircraft taking off!!! I hope this link works. Bad Takeoff - ninemsn Video Redair.
facthunter Posted June 26, 2009 Posted June 26, 2009 Fake? Good one if it is. Looked overloaded. Reefed it off wlthout adequate flying speed and it did what you would expect it to. One knocked around Beaver/Otter? Nev
farri Posted June 27, 2009 Posted June 27, 2009 Hard to believe it`s for real. thumb_down Look at all the water and distance available to the right and ahead of the aircraft,why would the pilot head for the left hand shore? Frank.
Barefootpilot Posted June 27, 2009 Posted June 27, 2009 Couldn't get the video to work but if its the one that has been kicking around for the last couple of weeks of a beaver at lake hood it is real. A docter with 3 pax and a dog. Increadably bad technique was the only reason the thing didn't fly (well for long anyway) The aircraft is never actually on "the step" it is being held to aft digging the back of the floats into the water and slowing the aircraft. He then trys to rotate the aircraft off the water which further digs the floats in and slows the aircraft further. He then manages to lift one float out which reduces the drag enough alow it to get airborne but the aircraft was way to slow to fly and hangs on the prop until it eventualy stalls.
farri Posted June 27, 2009 Posted June 27, 2009 Well at least there was a doctor on the scene, imediately :thumb_up:, because there sure as heck wasn`t a pilot there. Frank.
flying dog Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 Ok, reasons for my dis-belief: 1: This is a plane with fuel taking off. When it crashes, why isn't there more fire? 2: Although it supposedly took off right over the person's head, there was an aweful lot of shaking the camera where a cut could have been made. 3: The plane was flying. So the speed would have been... oooh: 90+ kts. The wreck seemed to stay somewhat close to the impact zone.
facthunter Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 Comment. completely in agreement with Adam Holt on this. The non-planing floats and the high nose attitude is all consistent with incorrect technique. Not even sure if the pilot could see where he was going, ( might have been sitting too low). Nev
Ben Longden Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 Well, at least the insurance company gets a frame by frame description of what went on... And thanks for the float plane technique tips. I never knew that!! Ben
Barefootpilot Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 Hello Flying dog, Why do you think it had full fuel? The fuel tanks are in the belly of the beavers so that why you wouldn't see any coming out of the wings. Your right there is alot of camera shake... I'd be shaking too! The beaver is a STOL design so when it lifts off there it would be doing less than 50kts it comman for us on a rough day to drag them out of the water at about 40kts and sit in ground effect to accelerate to climb speed. Adam.
Guest Redair Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 Oh dear, I never wanted to start a war over whether it was real or not! To me, the thing just looked doomed before it even go going... it looked like a tail-dragger in the water, and really didn't seem to have the right attitude. It never appeared to get up enough speed for a good climb, and I imagine it went very quickly into a stalled condition, with the pilot trying hard to clear the bank/hill that the cameraman, ooops sorry, cameraperson, was standing on. The first time I saw it, I thought that the person filming was over-acting when he dived to the floor... until I saw the follow up shot! OK, so if it is a fake... 10 out of 10 for effort. Looks real to me, but then what do I know? I still think the moon landing was a fake. Redair. PS, I have just seen Michael Jackson peeling potatoes for Elvis in our local chip shop!!!
Simonflyer Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 Was it just me, or did i see a flag/windsock indicating at least a x wind and possibly even a bit of downwind?
slartibartfast Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 There's some more explanation here and a link to the original YouTube vid with comments by the camera dude. Yes - the windsock showing a crosswind is a big clue. Edit - here's the YouTube video. It's much higher res.
facthunter Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Thanks Ross. . I think it's all been said there. Whatever the reason the aircraft didn't really get moving. At the commencement of the procedure the attirude was fine but the speed didn't appear to increase. Maybe the engine wasn't giving full power. Carb heat left on perhaps? I don't agree that the take-off couldn't be aborted, and surely it would have pulled up pretty quickly at any stage. Luck not to hurt the occupants. Nev.
Guest ozzie Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 yeah a bit of drift from the slight crosswind. but that should not have been a problem. Bit more attention to lining up down the centre of the what looks like a narrow river leading into the lake instead of trying to turn it during the run. bit more right rudder and maybe some cushions to sit on to see over the bonnett, bit of panic setting in trying to make it fly, shame the fence got in the way. Fresh water lakes usually need a bit more run and take a bit longer to get up and running than salt water. That camera person came pretty close to getting cleaned up. recovered really well to get back on the action. great footage hope he sold it to CNN or someone. ozzie
Barefootpilot Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 The river is actually a man made channel for the seaplane base and is actually the "runway" All good fun! I recommend everyone to go for a fly in a seaplane they are most fun you'll have in a plane!
flying dog Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Ok, why I suspect it is a fake - followup. Ok, I stand corrected the speed may have been overstated by me. Even so, 50Kts, that's 100 KPH. Fuel: Why "full"? Well, ok maybe not FULL, but here is my thinking. I don't know the fuel consumption/hour of one of those, but what say it is 20 L/HR. You couldn't take off with less than 15L anyway. (45 mins) but if you are going to fly, they you would need fuel. I'm guessing it would not have less than 30 Litres of fuel. Well 30 Litres would slosh around a fair bit and though it is not determined if the tank was ruptured, it would burn. Yes, we don't see much after the crash, but that is a point as well. If it was real there would most likely be a fire. If it is fake, the fire wouldn't happen and as we don't see that far down the time line, I would be suspicious it is a fake.
flying dog Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Oh not so much with it being a fake, but also the fact is was a cross wind take off there is something wrong there too.
facthunter Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Fire. I wouldn't build a case on the fact that there was no fire. You don't even know if the fuel tank was ruptured. These aircraft are BUILT. Nev.
slartibartfast Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Wow Flying Dog. You should swap usernames with Skeptic. How about this then. Here's a picture of the crash site. You can see where he should have been going. And here's a recording of the ATC at the time. The 185 pilot even warns him to come right. You'll note the wind was only 5 knots. Check out the number of planes about the place. What a great place to live that would be.
motzartmerv Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 And im pretty sure the Beaver would burn more then 20 lt/ hour. Double that and you maye be closer.. I always get susspect when the camera cuts away at critical times, but if this is fake, its a damm good one...:thumb_up:
flying dog Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 Well, in light of all the other info, I may have to retract my opinion. Hey, a wise man changes his mind, a fool doesn't.
facthunter Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 Info. Fair bit of info came to light there, ( fortunately/unfortunately) nev..
slartibartfast Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 Hey, a wise man changes his mind, a fool doesn't. Too true flying dog. When it comes to YouTube videos, I think your caution is well founded. flying cat
Barefootpilot Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 DHC-2 Beaver with a Pratt R985 burns 100 litres an hour.... Yeah not for the poor to play with! Flying Dog please don't think I've been trying to have a go at you that was not my aim I just know these aircraft and I know that seaplane base and there for know its not a fake. Great video though of how not to do it!
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