Mooney drops into my backyard

David Megginson wrote:

The report does not yet state why the pilot aborted the landings: it may
have been because of lower-than-reported visibility at the runway (such
as a small fog bank), or simply difficulty flying the approaches (such as
drifting too far off the LOC or GS and deciding to go around each time).
There is no mention of mechanical problems or fuel exhaustion, but that
might still be under investigation.

One more point -- the FAA report that I posted earlier stated that the last
clearance issued was to fly heading 230 and maintain 3000, so the plane was
likely being vectored downwind to rejoin the ILS 5R approach for the third
pass. Given that the ceiling was 800 BKN, 1800 OVC, the plane was probably
in IMC at 3000 ft when it suddenly dove under the radar.


All the best, and fly safe,


David

David Megginson wrote:
The NTSB now has its own preliminary report on the accident:

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20040506X00564

Here's the key paragraph:

A preliminary review of radar data shows the pilot was conducting an ILS
approach, and was attempting to land on runway 5R. The pilot reported
that
he was not familiar with the area and needed some assistance. RDU tower
controller provided the pilot with radar vectors to runway 5R. After the
two attempts to land, the Raleigh Durham tower offered to divert the
pilot
to Greensboro Piedmont Triad International Airport. The pilot refused and
stated he needed to land at RDU. On the third attempt the tower
controller
lost radio and radar contact with the airplane.

The report does not yet state why the pilot aborted the landings: it may
have been because of lower-than-reported visibility at the runway (such
as a small fog bank), or simply difficulty flying the approaches (such
as drifting too far off the LOC or GS and deciding to go around each
time). There is no mention of mechanical problems or fuel exhaustion,
but that might still be under investigation.

It also says the visibility at the time of the accident was "0.05 sm" which has
to be a typo.

I guess we'll know more when they release the approach control tapes.

I walked over and took a closer look at the impact site this weekend and it gave
me a new perspective. There is an impact gouge about 10 feet long, a foot deep,
and 2 feet wide. Since the tree by the waters edge is broken off about 10 feet
or so off the ground, I had thought the flight path was:
break off some trees
break off some more trees
break off tree by waters edge
cartwheel into the pond

After looking at the scene more closely, I realize it must have been:
break off some trees
break off some more trees
hit the ground, dig a big trench and bounce
break off tree by waters edge
cartwheel into the pond.

Even after hitting the ground and digging a big trench, it still had enough
momentum to tip the tree by the pond by 30 degrees or so and break off the roots.

NTSB (or someone) had done a pretty good job of cleaning up the site. There were
bits of insulation stuck in the trees, miscellaneous bits of material that
looked like they might have come from an airplane interior floating in the pond
near the outflows from the pond. My wife found a 6 inch piece of a front panel
at the trench including the - switch with the Bendix/King logo and "KY196" on
it. It all just confirmed my initial impression that there were few big pieces
left after the initial impact.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

Dave Butler wrote:

After looking at the scene more closely, I realize it must have been:
break off some trees
break off some more trees
hit the ground, dig a big trench and bounce
break off tree by waters edge
cartwheel into the pond.

Even after hitting the ground and digging a big trench, it still had
enough momentum to tip the tree by the pond by 30 degrees or so and
break off the roots.

That's what I gathered from the report itself -- it sounded like the plane
hit the trees at a fairly high speed. That makes it seem unlikely that it
was a forced landing, but as you mentioned in a part of your posting I
didn't quote, we'll know more when the tapes come out.

Have you had your own plane up since the accident? I know that it would
probably be hard for me to get back in the first time if I'd seen the
aftermath of something like that.


All the best,


David

David Megginson wrote:

Have you had your own plane up since the accident? I know that it would
probably be hard for me to get back in the first time if I'd seen the
aftermath of something like that.

My plane is in the paint shop, should be out any day now, but I took the
opportunity to go get some training in another Mooney, and I found the images of
the crash colored that experience.

The instructor took me deep into a stall, something I've never tried in a
Mooney. Now in my Cherokee, I could hold the yoke full back in my lap for as
long as I wanted to (or until I hit the ground, I suppose) and keep the wings
level using rudder, descending at a pretty good clip, but completely under
control. Not so with the Mooney: the wing drop in the stall was too fast to
correct for with rudder and I found myself oscillating left-right in roll and
unable to synchronize the corrections with the diversions. If we had continued,
I'm sure we would have been on our backs in short order.

I couldn't help thinking about the folks that crashed, probably (IMO) after loss
of control of some kind.

Dave Butler wrote:

The instructor took me deep into a stall, something I've never tried in
a Mooney. Now in my Cherokee, I could hold the yoke full back in my lap
for as long as I wanted to (or until I hit the ground, I suppose) and
keep the wings level using rudder, descending at a pretty good clip, but
completely under control.

Yes, that's been my experience in both the 172's I trained in and my
Warrior. It's probably because they're trainers: the manufacturers designed
the controls so that you just cannot pull the yoke back far enough for a
full stall, unless you enter from a steep turn or whip the yoke back very
quickly into an accelerated stall.

Not so with the Mooney: the wing drop in the
stall was too fast to correct for with rudder and I found myself
oscillating left-right in roll and unable to synchronize the corrections
with the diversions. If we had continued, I'm sure we would have been on
our backs in short order.

That may just be the cost of the Mooney's speed, though I'm just guessing --
less wing twist would mean less drag, but also less control around the
stall; more elevator travel is probably necessary for a plane with a bigger
speed range.


All the best,


David

In article gers.com,
David Megginson wrote:



It's probably because they're trainers: the manufacturers designed
the controls so that you just cannot pull the yoke back far enough for a
full stall, unless you enter from a steep turn or whip the yoke back very
quickly into an accelerated stall.

Don't believe that. Have you ever done stalls with someone in the rear
seat? Stall practice is normally done solo or with you and a CFI...CG
is well forward. Move the CG back (still well within limits) and you'll
find you have plenty of elevator to stall the airplane.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

Dale wrote:

Don't believe that. Have you ever done stalls with someone in the rear
seat? Stall practice is normally done solo or with you and a CFI...CG
is well forward. Move the CG back (still well within limits) and you'll
find you have plenty of elevator to stall the airplane.

That makes sense -- unfortunately, there's no way for me to try it legally
(or, I presume, safely).


All the best,


David

In article gers.com, David
Megginson writes:

Yes, that's been my experience in both the 172's I trained in and my
Warrior. It's probably because they're trainers: the manufacturers designed
the controls so that you just cannot pull the yoke back far enough for a
full stall, unless you enter from a steep turn or whip the yoke back very
quickly into an accelerated stall.


Peoblem (or solution) is not in pulling the yoke back far enough. The wing has
enough wash out (twist) that the inboard part stalls before the out board part
and you lose enough lift to start the mush down.

Chuck

PaulaJay1 wrote:

Peoblem (or solution) is not in pulling the yoke back far enough. The wing has
enough wash out (twist) that the inboard part stalls before the out board part
and you lose enough lift to start the mush down.

It's a combination of the two: you limit elevator or stabilator travel, and
then use wing twist to make it more likely that the plane will be
controllable on the edge of stall. I'm pretty sure that that twist adds
drag, though.


All the best,


David

In article ers.com,
David Megginson wrote:



That makes sense -- unfortunately, there's no way for me to try it legally
(or, I presume, safely).

There is nothing illegal or unsafe about doing stalls with pax in the
rear seats. The airplane was certified doing stalls at the aft CG limit.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html