Is it just me that thinks this was stupid

[Bravo Two Zero]

A small plane crashed into Lake Pleasant, just outside of Phoenix, at approx
8pm Friday, while the pilot was reportedly talking on his cellphone and
flying 10 feet above the water.

According to thr FAA, the pilot was talking on a cellphone to a friend in a
boat below and asked the friend to shine a flashlight in the air to signal
the boat's location.

[Phil]

Bravo Two Zero wrote:
> A small plane crashed into Lake Pleasant, just outside of Phoenix, at approx
> 8pm Friday, while the pilot was reportedly talking on his cellphone and
> flying 10 feet above the water.
>
> According to thr FAA, the pilot was talking on a cellphone to a friend in a
> boat below and asked the friend to shine a flashlight in the air to signal
> the boat's location.
>
>
>


Only if you crash ...

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Bravo Two Zero" > wrote:

> A small plane crashed into Lake Pleasant, just outside of Phoenix, at approx
> 8pm Friday, while the pilot was reportedly talking on his cellphone and
> flying 10 feet above the water.
>
> According to thr FAA, the pilot was talking on a cellphone to a friend in a
> boat below and asked the friend to shine a flashlight in the air to signal
> the boat's location.

what part do you think was stupid?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Peter R.]

On 5/14/2007 2:03:24 AM, "Bravo Two Zero" wrote:

> A small plane crashed into Lake Pleasant, just outside of Phoenix, at
> approx 8pm Friday, while the pilot was reportedly talking on his cellphone
> and flying 10 feet above the water.

Was the pilot killed?

--
Peter

[Blanche]

>On 5/14/2007 2:03:24 AM, "Bravo Two Zero" wrote:
>
>> A small plane crashed into Lake Pleasant, just outside of Phoenix, at
>> approx 8pm Friday, while the pilot was reportedly talking on his cellphone
>> and flying 10 feet above the water.

Can you have "ground effect" over water?

[[email protected]]

Definitely a Darwin award candidate.

It sounds like it will take them a while to recover the bodies since
they sank in 70 to 120 feet of water....

[Jose]

> Can you have "ground effect" over water?

Yes.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[gatt]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...

>> A small plane crashed into Lake Pleasant, just outside of Phoenix, at
>> approx
>> 8pm Friday, while the pilot was reportedly talking on his cellphone and
>> flying 10 feet above the water.
>>
>> According to thr FAA, the pilot was talking on a cellphone to a friend in
>> a
>> boat below and asked the friend to shine a flashlight in the air to
>> signal
>> the boat's location.
>
> what part do you think was stupid?


Flying 10 feet above water while distracted with non-flying activites?

-c

[[email protected]]

>
> what part do you think was stupid?
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> (goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Crashing into a lake and drowining just to impress your friend?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> >On 5/14/2007 2:03:24 AM, "Bravo Two Zero" wrote:
>>
>>> A small plane crashed into Lake Pleasant, just outside of Phoenix, at
>>> approx 8pm Friday, while the pilot was reportedly talking on his
>>> cellphone
>>> and flying 10 feet above the water.
>
> Can you have "ground effect" over water?

There's a great story about the crew of a Pan Am Stratocruiser I think it
was, who were low on fuel and a long way out over the ocean. They let down
to within a wingspan's distance over the water, leaned it back a ton, played
with the RPM, and made it home.
Can't remember the source of the story, but I do remember reading it a long
time ago.
Dudley Henriques

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Dudley Henriques" > said:
>There's a great story about the crew of a Pan Am Stratocruiser I think it
>was, who were low on fuel and a long way out over the ocean. They let down
>to within a wingspan's distance over the water, leaned it back a ton, played
>with the RPM, and made it home.
>Can't remember the source of the story, but I do remember reading it a long
>time ago.

Sounds like an Ernie Gann story.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
---------------- hit any user to continue ----------------

[[email protected]]

On May 14, 11:15 am, (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
> In a previous article, "Dudley Henriques" > said:
>
> >There's a great story about the crew of a Pan Am Stratocruiser I think it
> >was, who were low on fuel and a long way out over the ocean. They let down
> >to within a wingspan's distance over the water, leaned it back a ton, played
> >with the RPM, and made it home.
> >Can't remember the source of the story, but I do remember reading it a long
> >time ago.
>
> Sounds like an Ernie Gann story.
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin /
> ---------------- hit any user to continue ----------------

Yes, I think that was in "Fate is the Hunter"

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Dudley Henriques" > said:
>>There's a great story about the crew of a Pan Am Stratocruiser I think it
>>was, who were low on fuel and a long way out over the ocean. They let down
>>to within a wingspan's distance over the water, leaned it back a ton,
>>played
>>with the RPM, and made it home.
>>Can't remember the source of the story, but I do remember reading it a
>>long
>>time ago.
>
> Sounds like an Ernie Gann story.

You know, I think you might be right. It might very well have been from Fate
is the Hunter; but I think I remember seeing it in some magazine as well
years ago.
DH

[Orval Fairbairn]

> "Blanche" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >On 5/14/2007 2:03:24 AM, "Bravo Two Zero" wrote:
> >>
> >>> A small plane crashed into Lake Pleasant, just outside of Phoenix, at
> >>> approx 8pm Friday, while the pilot was reportedly talking on his
> >>> cellphone
> >>> and flying 10 feet above the water.
> >
> > Can you have "ground effect" over water?
>

This sounds like "Darwin Award" material!

[Kev]

On May 14, 11:08 am, Blanche > wrote:
> Can you have "ground effect" over water?

Yep, it's the basis for high-speed transports & warships that fly just
above the water...

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0130.shtml

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=523

Kev

[[email protected]]

On May 14, 1:44 pm, "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > In a previous article, "Dudley Henriques" > said:
> >>There's a great story about the crew of a Pan Am Stratocruiser I think it
> >>was, who were low on fuel and a long way out over the ocean. They let down
> >>to within a wingspan's distance over the water, leaned it back a ton,
> >>played
> >>with the RPM, and made it home.
> >>Can't remember the source of the story, but I do remember reading it a
> >>long
> >>time ago.
>
> > Sounds like an Ernie Gann story.
>
> You know, I think you might be right. It might very well have been from Fate
> is the Hunter; but I think I remember seeing it in some magazine as well
> years ago.
> DH

I just reread Fate is the Hunter and don't remember it in there. I'm
sure I've read the story though... Hmmm...

Maybe one of his other books.

John S.

[Tom L.]

On Mon, 14 May 2007 09:19:27 -0700, "gatt"
> wrote:

>
>"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
....
>> what part do you think was stupid?
>
>
>Flying 10 feet above water while distracted with non-flying activites?
>
>-c
>

And doing it 45 minutes after sunset. He probably could not see the
surface nor judge his altitude above it.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

> > Can you have "ground effect" over water?
>
> There's a great story about the crew of a Pan Am Stratocruiser I think it
> was, who were low on fuel and a long way out over the ocean. They let down
> to within a wingspan's distance over the water, leaned it back a ton, played
> with the RPM, and made it home.
> Can't remember the source of the story, but I do remember reading it a long
> time ago.
> Dudley Henriques

Didn't the B-25 guys bombing Japan fly low too?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

The Doolittle Raiders as far as I know flew the inbound leg from the Hornet
to their targets and outbound to China low but not nearly low enough to be
in ground effect, which is something I've always wondered about for the
outbound run into China since fuel was so critical for them. Also, I know
that Doolittle himself had done some considerable research into ground
effect.
I've never heard (officially anyway) that flying in ground effect was part
of the mission plan.
Dudley Henriques

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
>> > Can you have "ground effect" over water?
>>
>> There's a great story about the crew of a Pan Am Stratocruiser I think it
>> was, who were low on fuel and a long way out over the ocean. They let
>> down
>> to within a wingspan's distance over the water, leaned it back a ton,
>> played
>> with the RPM, and made it home.
>> Can't remember the source of the story, but I do remember reading it a
>> long
>> time ago.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Didn't the B-25 guys bombing Japan fly low too?
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> (goodness, please trim replies!!!)
>

[Kev]

On May 14, 7:43 pm, Bob Noel >
wrote:
> Didn't the B-25 guys bombing Japan fly low too?

I think they were actually afraid of hitting fishing boats if they
went that low.

The most famous ground effect demo has to be that of the Hughes'
Spruce Goose "takeoff" in harbor.

Least famous, but more important, were the use of ground effect by
some of the US Navy NC flying boats to make the first transatlantic
crossing in 1919 by airplane.

Cheers, Kev

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Kev" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 14, 7:43 pm, Bob Noel >
> wrote:
>> Didn't the B-25 guys bombing Japan fly low too?
>
> I think they were actually afraid of hitting fishing boats if they
> went that low.
>
> The most famous ground effect demo has to be that of the Hughes'
> Spruce Goose "takeoff" in harbor.
>
> Least famous, but more important, were the use of ground effect by
> some of the US Navy NC flying boats to make the first transatlantic
> crossing in 1919 by airplane.
>
> Cheers, Kev

I believe the mission was designed to go in low to avoid being seen by
defending fighters. Also, the bomb runs were briefed low to insure specific
target destruction. This led to the low altitude decision that afforded the
both of these two worlds.
Dudley Henriques

[Maxwell]

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
>
> Can you have "ground effect" over water?
>

Yes, if you are low enough.

[Maxwell]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> There's a great story about the crew of a Pan Am Stratocruiser I think it
> was, who were low on fuel and a long way out over the ocean. They let down
> to within a wingspan's distance over the water, leaned it back a ton,
> played with the RPM, and made it home.
> Can't remember the source of the story, but I do remember reading it a
> long time ago.

Don't you have to be within half the wing span to benefit much from ground
effect?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> There's a great story about the crew of a Pan Am Stratocruiser I think it
>> was, who were low on fuel and a long way out over the ocean. They let
>> down to within a wingspan's distance over the water, leaned it back a
>> ton, played with the RPM, and made it home.
>> Can't remember the source of the story, but I do remember reading it a
>> long time ago.
>
> Don't you have to be within half the wing span to benefit much from ground
> effect?

Ground effect can be considered generally or more accurately for a specific
aircraft.
GENERALLY speaking, you can begin to consider ground effect a factor about a
wingspan's distance above the surface.
Dudley Henriques

[DR]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> "Blanche" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> On 5/14/2007 2:03:24 AM, "Bravo Two Zero" wrote:
>>>
>>>> A small plane crashed into Lake Pleasant, just outside of Phoenix, at
>>>> approx 8pm Friday, while the pilot was reportedly talking on his
>>>> cellphone
>>>> and flying 10 feet above the water.
>> Can you have "ground effect" over water?
>
> There's a great story about the crew of a Pan Am Stratocruiser I think it
> was, who were low on fuel and a long way out over the ocean. They let down
> to within a wingspan's distance over the water, leaned it back a ton, played
> with the RPM, and made it home.
> Can't remember the source of the story, but I do remember reading it a long
> time ago.
> Dudley Henriques
>

Maybe a true story but I think the the odds are they would have been
much better off at high altitude. As I understand it, induced drag is
only reduced by 10% at 50% of wing span above surface. At 20% of wing
span altitude the drag is still ~70% (Surface skimming birds actually go
lower, nearly touching the water with their wing tips). Of course if the
Stratocourser dropped to say 10' it could have worked better... -kersplash!

Cheers MarkC

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In a previous article, "Dudley Henriques" > said:
>>>There's a great story about the crew of a Pan Am Stratocruiser I think it
>>>was, who were low on fuel and a long way out over the ocean. They let
>>>down
>>>to within a wingspan's distance over the water, leaned it back a ton,
>>>played
>>>with the RPM, and made it home.
>>>Can't remember the source of the story, but I do remember reading it a
>>>long
>>>time ago.
>>
>> Sounds like an Ernie Gann story.
>
> You know, I think you might be right. It might very well have been from
> Fate is the Hunter; but I think I remember seeing it in some magazine as
> well years ago.

Wouldn't your MPG be better at altitude?

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
"Bravo Two Zero" > wrote:

> A small plane crashed into Lake Pleasant, just outside of Phoenix, at approx
> 8pm Friday, while the pilot was reportedly talking on his cellphone and
> flying 10 feet above the water.
>
> According to thr FAA, the pilot was talking on a cellphone to a friend in a
> boat below and asked the friend to shine a flashlight in the air to signal
> the boat's location.

If he is dead, he may qualify for a Darwin Award.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote

> Wouldn't your MPG be better at altitude?

Considering the great reduction of induced drag while in ground effect, it
would depend on the engine, I would think.

RPM's would have to be reduced until the power output of the engine is down
below 55% or thereabouts, and it would have to be leaned aggressively.

Why don't we get someone to do an extended run along the surface of the
ocean, and then do the same test at altitude, and report back.

It would be interesting, I think! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"DR" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> "Blanche" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> On 5/14/2007 2:03:24 AM, "Bravo Two Zero" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A small plane crashed into Lake Pleasant, just outside of Phoenix, at
>>>>> approx 8pm Friday, while the pilot was reportedly talking on his
>>>>> cellphone
>>>>> and flying 10 feet above the water.
>>> Can you have "ground effect" over water?
>>
>> There's a great story about the crew of a Pan Am Stratocruiser I think it
>> was, who were low on fuel and a long way out over the ocean. They let
>> down to within a wingspan's distance over the water, leaned it back a
>> ton, played with the RPM, and made it home.
>> Can't remember the source of the story, but I do remember reading it a
>> long time ago.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Maybe a true story but I think the the odds are they would have been much
> better off at high altitude. As I understand it, induced drag is only
> reduced by 10% at 50% of wing span above surface. At 20% of wing span
> altitude the drag is still ~70% (Surface skimming birds actually go lower,
> nearly touching the water with their wing tips). Of course if the
> Stratocourser dropped to say 10' it could have worked
> better... -kersplash!
>
> Cheers MarkC

If I remember right, nobody reporting on the incident reflected on what they
might have done, only on what they actually did. They very well might have
optimized range at altitude.
I can't remember the specifics involved. Knowing the exact circumstances
would make it a lot more clear for those interested in making a judgment on
the incident I would imagine.
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In a previous article, "Dudley Henriques" > said:
>>>>There's a great story about the crew of a Pan Am Stratocruiser I think
>>>>it
>>>>was, who were low on fuel and a long way out over the ocean. They let
>>>>down
>>>>to within a wingspan's distance over the water, leaned it back a ton,
>>>>played
>>>>with the RPM, and made it home.
>>>>Can't remember the source of the story, but I do remember reading it a
>>>>long
>>>>time ago.
>>>
>>> Sounds like an Ernie Gann story.
>>
>> You know, I think you might be right. It might very well have been from
>> Fate is the Hunter; but I think I remember seeing it in some magazine as
>> well years ago.
>
> Wouldn't your MPG be better at altitude?

A lot would depend on what you had to expend in resources to get up there
from where you were when the decision had to be made . Not sure at all what
the circumstances were in this incident.
Dudley Henriques

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

john smith > wrote:

>> According to thr FAA, the pilot was talking on a cellphone to a
>> friend in a boat below and asked the friend to shine a flashlight in
>> the air to signal the boat's location.
>
> If he is dead, he may qualify for a Darwin Award.

Definitely. I saw this on the news and thought, oh no, here's another tragic GA accident situation that's
going to further polarize the public about the inherent dangers of general aviation. This is all we need,
with user fees, TFRs, you name it. Not to mention convincing my own relatives that it's not a dangerous
avocation. Then I hear these details and I admit the final story is not in yet, but it sure sounds like some
bozo just being totally stupid. We don't need that.

Nevertheless, condolences to the families. I think I read it was a Diamond with two on board, both
presumed drowned in deep water.

Mike

[Jose]

> If I remember right, nobody reporting on the incident reflected on what they
> might have done, only on what they actually did. They very well might have
> optimized range at altitude.

Maybe they couldn't get to altitude.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> If I remember right, nobody reporting on the incident reflected on what
>> they might have done, only on what they actually did. They very well
>> might have optimized range at altitude.
>
> Maybe they couldn't get to altitude.

I sure wish I could remember the specifics but it's all a big fuzzball. I
remember seeing the story but don't remember much about the specifics, and
that's where the answer will be I'm sure. Through the fog I seem to remember
something about not wanting to do the climb because of the fuel remaining
and that being a factor in their decision.
Knowing the gang on this forum, I'll bet someone finds the answer before
this thread is finished :-))
Dudley Henriques

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >, DR >
wrote:

> Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > "Blanche" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>> On 5/14/2007 2:03:24 AM, "Bravo Two Zero" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> A small plane crashed into Lake Pleasant, just outside of Phoenix, at
> >>>> approx 8pm Friday, while the pilot was reportedly talking on his
> >>>> cellphone
> >>>> and flying 10 feet above the water.
> >> Can you have "ground effect" over water?
> >
> > There's a great story about the crew of a Pan Am Stratocruiser I think it
> > was, who were low on fuel and a long way out over the ocean. They let down
> > to within a wingspan's distance over the water, leaned it back a ton,
> > played
> > with the RPM, and made it home.
> > Can't remember the source of the story, but I do remember reading it a long
> > time ago.
> > Dudley Henriques
> >
>
> Maybe a true story but I think the the odds are they would have been
> much better off at high altitude. As I understand it, induced drag is
> only reduced by 10% at 50% of wing span above surface. At 20% of wing
> span altitude the drag is still ~70% (Surface skimming birds actually go
> lower, nearly touching the water with their wing tips). Of course if the
> Stratocourser dropped to say 10' it could have worked better... -kersplash!
>
> Cheers MarkC

I recall the story -- happened about 50 years ago. The Stratocruiser
lost 2 engines, IIRC, and descended (power glided) to about 1/2 wingspan
of the water and was able to fly to land in surface effect. They
obviously did not descend immediately, rather they did a max L/D powered
descent until they stopped losing altitude. It was written up in an old
"Reader's Digest," among others.

[John Clear]

In article >,
Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
>
>I recall the story -- happened about 50 years ago. The Stratocruiser
>lost 2 engines, IIRC, and descended (power glided) to about 1/2 wingspan
>of the water and was able to fly to land in surface effect. They
>obviously did not descend immediately, rather they did a max L/D powered
>descent until they stopped losing altitude. It was written up in an old
>"Reader's Digest," among others.

This sounds like the Ernest Gann novel 'The High and the Mighty'
which was also made into a movie of the same name, starring John
Wayne and Robert Stack.

Halfway between Hawaii and San Francisco, they lose an engine which
sheds parts and punctures the fuel tanks on that wing. The movie
was unavailable for years due to a dispute with Wayne's estate,
but has recently become available. I watched it last year, and it
is very well done, and the inspiration for all the other aviation
disaster flicks.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Capt.Doug]

>"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message > A lot would depend on what you had to
>expend in resources to get up there
> from where you were when the decision had to be made . Not sure at all
what
> the circumstances were in this incident.

Speaking strictly of recips, would max range differ with altitude? The late
great Max Karant had the answer in his Twin Comanche.

D.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"John Clear" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
>>
>>I recall the story -- happened about 50 years ago. The Stratocruiser
>>lost 2 engines, IIRC, and descended (power glided) to about 1/2 wingspan
>>of the water and was able to fly to land in surface effect. They
>>obviously did not descend immediately, rather they did a max L/D powered
>>descent until they stopped losing altitude. It was written up in an old
>>"Reader's Digest," among others.
>
> This sounds like the Ernest Gann novel 'The High and the Mighty'
> which was also made into a movie of the same name, starring John
> Wayne and Robert Stack.
>
> Halfway between Hawaii and San Francisco, they lose an engine which
> sheds parts and punctures the fuel tanks on that wing. The movie
> was unavailable for years due to a dispute with Wayne's estate,
> but has recently become available. I watched it last year, and it
> is very well done, and the inspiration for all the other aviation
> disaster flicks.
>
> John
> --
> John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/
>

If I remember right, in that movie the bird was a DC6 and I think they
stayed at altitude until approach with a normal enroute altitude profile.
The big rub was the ongoing interaction between the right and left seats on
whether to ditch in the sea under power with the remaining fuel or try for
the approach and take a chance the engines would quit.

Poor Lennie the navigator screwed up his winds and made the problem a bit
more interesting, but I don't recall them leaving their assigned altitude
enroute to take a shot at ground effect.
Great movie though. Wonderful sub-plots with Alexis Smith and David Brian
and the other regulars.
You have to love the Duke! Poor Robert Stack. With an engine hanging off the
wing, raw fuel pouring out all over the place, the passengers yelling and
screaming in the back that they're all going to die, solid IFR, on vectors
to the FAF with nothing but the city below him and the fuel gauges on empty,
the Duke, who KNOWS that unusable fuel just MIGHT be usable, slaps him in
the puss and hollers, "Shut up and fly!"
Ah...the movies!!! Great Stuff!! :-))
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dave Esser did a great article on this at ER.
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:dh0cvu-Z2Z8J:www.erau.edu/er/newsmedia/articles/wp7.html+maximum+range+vs+altitude&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Wasn't Karant's Twin Commanche lost in a fire somewhere?
DH





"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> >"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message > A lot would depend on what you had
> >to
>>expend in resources to get up there
>> from where you were when the decision had to be made . Not sure at all
> what
>> the circumstances were in this incident.
>
> Speaking strictly of recips, would max range differ with altitude? The
> late
> great Max Karant had the answer in his Twin Comanche.
>
> D.
>
>

[John Clear]

In article >,
Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>If I remember right, in that movie the bird was a DC6 and I think they
>stayed at altitude until approach with a normal enroute altitude profile.
>The big rub was the ongoing interaction between the right and left seats on
>whether to ditch in the sea under power with the remaining fuel or try for
>the approach and take a chance the engines would quit.

I remember them dumping everything they could overboard since they
couldn't maintain altitude, and then arguments over running flat
out as far as possible, or leaning aggressively. I don't remember
them in ground effect, except for barely clearing Portola Ridge on
approach into San Francisco.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Jose]

> Knowing the gang on this forum, I'll bet someone finds the answer before
> this thread is finished :-))

Threads finish?

:) Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> You have to love the Duke! Poor Robert Stack. With an engine hanging off
> the wing, raw fuel pouring out all over the place, the passengers yelling
> and screaming in the back that they're all going to die, solid IFR, on
> vectors to the FAF with nothing but the city below him and the fuel gauges
> on empty, the Duke, who KNOWS that unusable fuel just MIGHT be usable,
> slaps him in the puss and hollers, "Shut up and fly!"
> Ah...the movies!!! Great Stuff!! :-))

Robert Stack, hell! My wifes slaps me like that regularly...,"Shut up and
<whatever>!"

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
>> Knowing the gang on this forum, I'll bet someone finds the answer before
>> this thread is finished :-))
>
> Threads finish?

I think "wander" might be a better term :-)
I remember one that started with "What's the concrete mix ratio for concrete
runways please?" and finished about 80 posts later with
"Picking a good CFI is the first decision you make as a pilot that has to be
right"
Ya gotta love Usenet!!!
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> You have to love the Duke! Poor Robert Stack. With an engine hanging off
>> the wing, raw fuel pouring out all over the place, the passengers yelling
>> and screaming in the back that they're all going to die, solid IFR, on
>> vectors to the FAF with nothing but the city below him and the fuel
>> gauges on empty, the Duke, who KNOWS that unusable fuel just MIGHT be
>> usable, slaps him in the puss and hollers, "Shut up and fly!"
>> Ah...the movies!!! Great Stuff!! :-))
>
> Robert Stack, hell! My wifes slaps me like that regularly...,"Shut up and
> <whatever>!"

DRIVE! That's the word. I hear it all the time :-))
DH

[Luke Skywalker]

On May 14, 1:03 am, "Bravo Two Zero" > wrote:
> A small plane crashed into Lake Pleasant, just outside of Phoenix, at approx
> 8pm Friday, while the pilot was reportedly talking on his cellphone and
> flying 10 feet above the water.
>
> According to thr FAA, the pilot was talking on a cellphone to a friend in a
> boat below and asked the friend to shine a flashlight in the air to signal
> the boat's location.

Darwin award possibility

Robert

[ArtP]

On Mon, 14 May 2007 18:48:20 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>


>
>Wouldn't your MPG be better at altitude?
>

Besides ground effect, winds aloft can have a very great effect on
MPG. If you have a head wind stay low.

[Luke Skywalker]

On May 15, 9:22 am, "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> You have to love the Duke! Poor Robert Stack. With an engine hanging off
> >> the wing, raw fuel pouring out all over the place, the passengers yelling
> >> and screaming in the back that they're all going to die, solid IFR, on
> >> vectors to the FAF with nothing but the city below him and the fuel
> >> gauges on empty, the Duke, who KNOWS that unusable fuel just MIGHT be
> >> usable, slaps him in the puss and hollers, "Shut up and fly!"
> >> Ah...the movies!!! Great Stuff!! :-))
>
> > Robert Stack, hell! My wifes slaps me like that regularly...,"Shut up and
> > <whatever>!"
>
> DRIVE! That's the word. I hear it all the time :-))
> DH

That is a great scene in a great movie. That movie is so wonderful.
It was back in an era when the "words" more or less were compliments
to the acting not the entire show.

the last scenes, the one under the wing as the manager of the airline
talks to all the crew and one by one they walk off into the fog until
it is just "the old pelican" and The manager. What acting on
everyones part. The looks in Stacks face, and the Duke...

Oh my goodness. IN a non western/war movie this is some of the best
The Duke does.

Robert

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Luke Skywalker" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 15, 9:22 am, "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> >> You have to love the Duke! Poor Robert Stack. With an engine hanging
>> >> off
>> >> the wing, raw fuel pouring out all over the place, the passengers
>> >> yelling
>> >> and screaming in the back that they're all going to die, solid IFR, on
>> >> vectors to the FAF with nothing but the city below him and the fuel
>> >> gauges on empty, the Duke, who KNOWS that unusable fuel just MIGHT be
>> >> usable, slaps him in the puss and hollers, "Shut up and fly!"
>> >> Ah...the movies!!! Great Stuff!! :-))
>>
>> > Robert Stack, hell! My wifes slaps me like that regularly...,"Shut up
>> > and
>> > <whatever>!"
>>
>> DRIVE! That's the word. I hear it all the time :-))
>> DH
>
> That is a great scene in a great movie. That movie is so wonderful.
> It was back in an era when the "words" more or less were compliments
> to the acting not the entire show.
>
> the last scenes, the one under the wing as the manager of the airline
> talks to all the crew and one by one they walk off into the fog until
> it is just "the old pelican" and The manager. What acting on
> everyones part. The looks in Stacks face, and the Duke...
>
> Oh my goodness. IN a non western/war movie this is some of the best
> The Duke does.
>
> Robert

Right up there with my all time favorite scene with Dean Jagger doing the
segue at both ends of 12'oclock high.
This segue was probably one of the finest bits of creative direction and
acting ever shot on film. A masterpiece of direction by Henry King!
Dudley Henriques

[Luke Skywalker]

On May 15, 11:26 am, "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> "Luke Skywalker" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 9:22 am, "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> >> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> >> ...
>
> >> >> You have to love the Duke! Poor Robert Stack. With an engine hanging
> >> >> off
> >> >> the wing, raw fuel pouring out all over the place, the passengers
> >> >> yelling
> >> >> and screaming in the back that they're all going to die, solid IFR, on
> >> >> vectors to the FAF with nothing but the city below him and the fuel
> >> >> gauges on empty, the Duke, who KNOWS that unusable fuel just MIGHT be
> >> >> usable, slaps him in the puss and hollers, "Shut up and fly!"
> >> >> Ah...the movies!!! Great Stuff!! :-))
>
> >> > Robert Stack, hell! My wifes slaps me like that regularly...,"Shut up
> >> > and
> >> > <whatever>!"
>
> >> DRIVE! That's the word. I hear it all the time :-))
> >> DH
>
> > That is a great scene in a great movie. That movie is so wonderful.
> > It was back in an era when the "words" more or less were compliments
> > to the acting not the entire show.
>
> > the last scenes, the one under the wing as the manager of the airline
> > talks to all the crew and one by one they walk off into the fog until
> > it is just "the old pelican" and The manager. What acting on
> > everyones part. The looks in Stacks face, and the Duke...
>
> > Oh my goodness. IN a non western/war movie this is some of the best
> > The Duke does.
>
> > Robert
>
> Right up there with my all time favorite scene with Dean Jagger doing the
> segue at both ends of 12'oclock high.
> This segue was probably one of the finest bits of creative direction and
> acting ever shot on film. A masterpiece of direction by Henry King!
> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh yes. 12 OClock High the movie is just minute by minute awesome.
The subplots in it, the counter points made, the acting. The opening
and closing scenes are just breathtakers, as were so many scenes.

The one where "Savage' burns out. Wasnt that just amazingly played?

There are really three movies made about WWII, all in the post war
era, that just show how the war, the maxium effort "used" people up.
Didnt kill them (except in one case) just used them up. 12 O Clock
High, Away all Boats, and Sands of Iwo Jima. oh to be fair to the
Ground Army... Battle of the Bulge.

Just haunting in the acting. "I'll take the flight sir", "No let
Gatley do it, make sure Gately takes it OK" (or something like
that...) Peck of course is staring directly at Gately...

haunting. Top Gun is good, these are marvelous.

Robert

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>
> Right up there with my all time favorite scene with Dean Jagger doing the
> segue at both ends of 12'oclock high.
> This segue was probably one of the finest bits of creative direction and
> acting ever shot on film. A masterpiece of direction by Henry King!

I finally have enough money to buy a Toby mug, and the National Museum
of the United States Air Force no longer sells them. :-(

[Montblack]

("Dudley Henriques" wrote)
> I remember one that started with "What's the concrete mix ratio for
> concrete runways please?" and finished about 80 posts later with "Picking
> a good CFI is the first decision you make as a pilot that has to be right"


I attended the "Open House" for Runway 17/35 at MSP two years ago.

We got to walk out on the runway, see some jets (up close), look at lots of
big airport equipment, visit 20(?) different contractor tent-booths, listen
to a band, ...the usual stuff. <g>

They had a cut-a-way model section of the new runway - no rebar. Project
manager said that they don't use rebar when building new runways - at least
not in Minnesota, I guess.

http://www.mspairport.com/msp/expansion/airfield/runway_17_35.aspx
The Mall of America is at the top of the pic @ 12:30

That's the Minnesota River, behind the MoA. It connects up with the
Mississippi River, downstream, another two miles.


Montblack
MoA is the former site of Metropolitan Stadium (Twins, Vikings) and Met
Center (MN North Stars)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Many years ago when I was working a field in Maryland as a CFI, I'd
sometimes come back to the field late at night during the summer months and
just walk the runway all alone sometimes. It was a great time to think;
complete solitude and silence. It was also a great way to check the runway
for anything loose that might cause a safety problem in the morning.
Dudley Henriques


"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Dudley Henriques" wrote)
>> I remember one that started with "What's the concrete mix ratio for
>> concrete runways please?" and finished about 80 posts later with "Picking
>> a good CFI is the first decision you make as a pilot that has to be
>> right"
>
>
> I attended the "Open House" for Runway 17/35 at MSP two years ago.
>
> We got to walk out on the runway, see some jets (up close), look at lots
> of
> big airport equipment, visit 20(?) different contractor tent-booths,
> listen
> to a band, ...the usual stuff. <g>
>
> They had a cut-a-way model section of the new runway - no rebar. Project
> manager said that they don't use rebar when building new runways - at
> least not in Minnesota, I guess.
>
> http://www.mspairport.com/msp/expansion/airfield/runway_17_35.aspx
> The Mall of America is at the top of the pic @ 12:30
>
> That's the Minnesota River, behind the MoA. It connects up with the
> Mississippi River, downstream, another two miles.
>
>
> Montblack
> MoA is the former site of Metropolitan Stadium (Twins, Vikings) and Met
> Center (MN North Stars)
>
>
>

[Montblack]

("Richard Riley" wrote)
> Right author, wrong book. "The High and the Mighty." But in the book (and
> movie, IIRC) they're in a DC-4, and it's based on a true story.


BTW ....add the ")" after (film), when using the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_and_the_Mighty_(film)
(From Wiki... )

The aircraft (N4726V)

The DC-4 aircraft used to film the tarmac, passenger boarding (Gate 4),
take-off and external daylight flying sequences was a C-54A-10-DC (c/n
10315) built in 1942 at Long Beach, California by the Douglas Aircraft
Company under military contract for the USAAF (s/n 42-72210). When its
sequences for the film were shot in mid November 1953 the aircraft (N4726V,
formerly N66694 and LV-ABR) was being operated by Transocean Airlines
(1946-62), an Oakland, California-based non-scheduled carrier and the
largest civil aviation operator of recycled C-54 aircraft during the 1950s.
Novel and screenplay author Ernest K. Gann had written the original book
when he was flying C-54s for Transocean over the Hawaii-California routes.
Named The Argentine Queen, the plane had once been the personal aircraft of
Juan Perón (the controversial three-time President of Argentina) before it
was acquired by Transocean in 1953. The film's fictional airline's name
(TOPAC) was integrated with Transocean's red, white, and yellow color scheme
for filming.

A second Transocean C-54/DC-4 (equipped with a large double door to
accommodate the loading of freight on pallets) was used to film the scenes
of the damaged plane on the ground at the end of the film, while the
external night and damaged "in-flight" sequences were filmed in a studio
using a large miniature. Scenes inside the passenger cabin and on the flight
deck were filmed on sets built on a sound stage.

True life end of N4726V

At 8:47 PM (HST) on March 27, 1964 N4726V took off on a charter flight from
Honolulu to Los Angeles with a crew of three and six passengers onboard. A
little before 6AM (PST), about eight hours into the anticipated 11 hour, 40
minute flight, a Mayday call was heard from the pilot, who reported his
position as about 700 miles west of San Francisco with a serious fire in
engine #2 (left inboard) adding, "...we may have to put it in" (ditching the
aircraft in the ocean might be necessary). No further transmissions were
heard from the plane. The Coast Guard searched for five days but no traces
of the aircraft or its occupants were ever found. Later investigation showed
that engine #2 had a recurring oil leak in its propeller governor assembly,
but the fire's cause remained unknown. Many writers have commented on the
ironic similarities between the plane's role in the film and its tragic end
over the Pacific.


Montblack

[James Robinson]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> "Blanche" > wrote:
>>
>> Can you have "ground effect" over water?
>
> There's a great story about the crew of a Pan Am Stratocruiser I think
> it was, who were low on fuel and a long way out over the ocean. They
> let down to within a wingspan's distance over the water, leaned it
> back a ton, played with the RPM, and made it home.
> Can't remember the source of the story, but I do remember reading it a
> long time ago.

You're probably thinking of the MATS C97, which was flying between Travis
and Hickam (Hawaii) in 1957 when it had prop troubles. The Stratocruiser
was the commercial version of the C97, which in turn was a derivative of
the B-29.

Both designs had problems with their 28 cylinder radials resulting in a
number of accidents or incidents. Propeller overspeeds and blade failures
were far too common. There was a problem with the pitch control on the
props, such that when they ran out of oil, they moved to fine pitch, and
couldn't be feathered. The prop would then spin wildly because of
windmilling, and eventually either disintegrate or fly off due to lack of
lubrication of the hub.

Among the first accidents was the loss of a PanAm Stratocruiser in the
Brazilian jungle in 1952, where the accident investigators had to use a
PBY to land on a nearby lake, then build a temporary runway to bring in
heavier construction equipment, and finally build a 25 mile road into
unexplored jungle to look for clues at the accident site. They
determined that the #2 engine somehow tore away from the wing, and the
aircraft then failed structurally. They couldn't identify the reason for
the engine failure.

Another notable incident involved another PanAm Statocruiser that was
just past the midpoint of a flight between Hawaii and the mainland, when
the #4 prop went overspeed. The pilot determined that with the extra
drag of the windmilling prop, they couldn't make the mainland, so they
circled over a Coast Guard ship that was stationed mid-ocean for weather
updates and for SAR, if needed. The aircraft eventually was ditched, and
there are photos of the ditching floating around. Everybody, both
passengers and crew, survived the ditching and were rescued.

There were perhaps an additional half dozen incidents with C97s or
Statocruisers where they mysteriously went missing mid-ocean, or had a
prop go overspeed, and were able to land safely, so the problems were
pretty well known by crews.

Getting to the MATS incident, the short version of the story is that the
#1 engine's prop went overspeed over the Pacific while they were still
over 1,000nm from their destination. They calculated they had enough fuel
for only 6 hours of flight, but were still 6:30 from Hickam. They were
also losing altitude due to the extra drag of the unfeathered prop.

The crew decided to shut down the #2 engine, and feather its prop, and
they banked the aircraft 40 degrees to the right, as they knew the prop
from the #1 would eventually fly off, and they wanted to reduce the
chance of major damage. When the #1 prop flew off a few minutes later, it
took three feet off one of the blades of the #2 engine prop, and dented
the top of the nacelle, the top of the fuselage, and the vertical
stabilizer, without causing any other major damage.

They then jettisoned all baggage and freight, and eventually descended
close to the surface of the ocean, where they were able to maintain
altitude, the speed increased slightly, and they were able to retard the
power of the two remaining engines somewhat. All probably a benefit of
ground effect.

Two pilots had to handle the controls, since even with full right trim,
they had to brace themselves in their seats, with both feet on the right
rudder pedals to hold against the considerable yaw from the two engines
at high power on one side. A third pilot would spell the others to share
the workload over the many remaining hours. They supposedly flew the
rest of the way at between 100 and 125 feet above the water.

In the end, as they approached Hilo, they found they couldn't lower the
gear on the port side, and had to execute a go-around. They hand cranked
the gear down, breaking through the jammed gear doors, and landed safely
with 30 minutes of fuel left.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-05-14 08:08:31 -0700, Blanche > said:

>> On 5/14/2007 2:03:24 AM, "Bravo Two Zero" wrote:
>>
>>> A small plane crashed into Lake Pleasant, just outside of Phoenix, at
>>> approx 8pm Friday, while the pilot was reportedly talking on his cellphone
>>> and flying 10 feet above the water.
>
> Can you have "ground effect" over water?

Used to be a common fuel saving strategy for long over-water flights.
You could on a C-130, for example, kill two engines, descend to ground
effect, and increase your range and/or endurance dramatically.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-05-13 23:03:21 -0700, "Bravo Two Zero" > said:

> A small plane crashed into Lake Pleasant, just outside of Phoenix, at approx
> 8pm Friday, while the pilot was reportedly talking on his cellphone and
> flying 10 feet above the water.
>
> According to thr FAA, the pilot was talking on a cellphone to a friend in a
> boat below and asked the friend to shine a flashlight in the air to signal
> the boat's location.

It appears there were two people on board. We don't know the facts,
such as whether it was the pilot or the passenger who was talking on
the phone, whether both were pilots, or even the actual altitude.

What a reporter says he heard from the FAA is at best third hand information.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor