Bonanza crash caught on video

On Sep 1, 7:42 am, Jay Honeck wrote:

That's interesting -- I never realized that Bo pilots didn't need to
use flaps for departure.

I presume there is something about the wing that makes them
unnecessary?

Don't know about the Bonanza, but the Cessna 150 I learned in didn't
use them either unless the field was short, soft or rough -- and even
then the POH said not to use flaps if there was a significant obstacle
to clear. The reduction in distance-to-clear from a shorter takeoff
roll was more than compensated for by the poorer climb rate with even
10 deg of flap. For some airplanes the drag from any amount of flap
deployment really saps power.

Jay Honeck wrote:
Many if not most Bonanzas don't use flaps even for short field and
this didn't look short. As some one from there mentioned it's 4000
feet at 1200 MSL. There is no take off maneuver even short field at
high altitude in mine that calls for any use of the flaps.

That's interesting -- I never realized that Bo pilots didn't need to
use flaps for departure.

I presume there is something about the wing that makes them
unnecessary?

I don't know about the Bo in particular, but on some airplanes the flaps
contribute more to drag than to lift. The 182 flaps generate tremendous
additional lift up to 20 degrees or so and then begin to add drag at a
high rate. The Arrow I last flew seemed to add little lift and some
drag once past 20 degrees, but added neither the lift nor the drag of
the much more effective Cessna flaps.

I've never flown a Bo so I don't know what is flaps characteristics are,
but if the flaps mainly add drag and don't lower the stall speed
appreciable, then using them for takeoff would make little sense. The
Arrow performed only marginally better when using flaps for takeoff.
The Skylane was a whole different airplane with flaps 20 on takeoff.
The deck angle was amazing and the climb speed substantially reduced.

Matt

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
Many if not most Bonanzas don't use flaps even for short field and
this didn't look short. As some one from there mentioned it's 4000
feet at 1200 MSL. There is no take off maneuver even short field at
high altitude in mine that calls for any use of the flaps.

That's interesting -- I never realized that Bo pilots didn't need to
use flaps for departure.

I presume there is something about the wing that makes them
unnecessary?

Both Vx and Vy for virtually all light aircraft are without flaps.



The only time a POH will recommend flaps for takeoff is short field, and
then the speed used is a speed below Vx. This is a speed to clear close in
obstacles and does not result in best angle of climb. It is a compromise
speed used because the short field distance doesn't allow the aircraft to
accelerate to the greater Vx speed.



You might call this "compromise" with flaps speed Vxwithflaps, but they
don't.



Mostly the aircraft that have this "lower than Vx with flaps speed" used for
takeoff have fairly powerful engines. My Cessna 185, for instance has this
speed published and the POH shows 20deg flaps for short field. But once past
the close in obstacles one should accelerate to Vx and raise the flaps to
clear far obstacles.



If the airspeed is in the green arc, the airplane will climb better without
flaps.



Karl

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 05:42:52 -0700, Jay Honeck
wrote:

Many if not most Bonanzas don't use flaps even for short field and
this didn't look short. As some one from there mentioned it's 4000
feet at 1200 MSL. There is no take off maneuver even short field at
high altitude in mine that calls for any use of the flaps.

That's interesting -- I never realized that Bo pilots didn't need to
use flaps for departure.

I presume there is something about the wing that makes them
unnecessary?

"I think" meaning I don't know for sure, that flaps slow the
acceleration enough that nothing is gained in distance by using them.
That and with gear and flaps it has some very abrupt and demanding
stall characteristics.

Although the Bo is a "relatively" large single, it has roughly the
same wing loading as a Cherokee, or about 17# per sq ft (give or take
a tad). It's big, but it has a big wing with lots of lift and is a
very good short field plane for both landing and take off. The Debs
and earlier F33s had a shorter landing distance than some 172s. With
the larger engines they can also get out of a fairly short field.

One interesting characteristic of a soft field take off is if the up
elevator pressure is not eased off as the nose gear comes off the
plane will rotate into ground effect early and then settle back down
to never lift off again unless back pressure is eased off considerably
to allow the place to accelerate.

On asphalt you can get the plane into ground effect in a very short
distance. Then it becomes a balancing act to accelerate just inches
off the pavement while not touching back down. I'd be a bit hesitant
to try this technique on a real soft or rough field unless it were the
only way out.

I once had the privilege to experience a departure in ground effect
along with a tail wind in the Deb from Goodland KS. The ends of the
one runway are well above the center portion with rising terrain off
the end so you need to accelerate before the half way point. Just as
we reached the low point, the wind switched abruptly by 90 degrees
from a quartering head wind to a quartering tail wind. Too fast to
stop and to slow to fly. I hauled it off in ground effect and hoped
for the best. Fortunately there were no trees off the end of the
runway, but there were a number of large rocks/boulders. We were in
ground effect until cresting the hill. That was one tense departure.

Roger

On 2007-09-01, Jay Honeck wrote:
That's interesting -- I never realized that Bo pilots didn't need to
use flaps for departure.
I presume there is something about the wing that makes them
unnecessary?

Depends on the Bonanza - I found that flaps 10 on an S-35 model made a
worthwhile difference to a soft field takeoff (broke ground sooner).

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 00:49:10 -0400, NoneYa
wrote:

Many if not most Bonanzas don't use flaps even for short field and
this didn't look short. As some one from there mentioned it's 4000
feet at 1200 MSL. There is no take off maneuver even short field at
high altitude in mine that calls for any use of the flaps.

As to gas, the capacity varies over a wide range. With a newer plane
it varies from 75 to 100 or so depending on the tanks installed and
the size of the Aux tanks.. I can put 600# of fuel in mine and with
1000# useful load it's at best a 3 passenger plane if they are skinny
and no baggage. The F33s reached 1400# useful load so depending on
lots of variables It may or may not be a 4 passenger plane.

They reported it to be a 4 seat, but it sure looked like an A36. Try
as I might I could not come up with a valid N number to check. Nor
could I find anything listed for a Walter Norwood.

Even on a hot day at 1200 feet it should have had the ability to get
in and out of a 4000 foot strip with only moderately rising terrain
and a *light* tail wind.

I can only guess, but two guys I know flew a Cherokee 180 into a grass
strip in the UP of Michigan for a fishing trip. On the day they came
home it was HOT and humid. Basically they were high, hot, humid, and
heavy. The pilot was trying to give the trees at the end of the
runway a wide berth, but they had neither the speed nor power. The
right seater kept telling him to keep the nose now as he was easing it
up. The almost cleared the trees. OTOH they didn't go down, but they
did leave the position lights from both wing tips in the trees and
they still had brush in the landing gear when they got home. Actually
they had a 6" dent just inside the last rib. The pilot once made the
statement, had the right seater kept forcing him to keep the nose
down, they'd never have made it.

I wonder if this wasn't a similar situation but without some one
reminding the pilot to keep the nose down.

Roger

Taking the last item first; yes, it is very possible. One day, about 25
years ago, I was out with an instructor practicing in a Cessna 150M. The
wind was nearly 20KTS and he, being a bit of a "good ol' boy", elected to
demonstrate a downwind touch and go. The terrain is southeastern Florida is
*very* flat, with the usual urban ground clutter sticking up, so it is
fairly easy to have a fairly sharp gradient in the wind as you climb out of
ground effect--which works in your favor when you go the right direction,
but... He had been away for about a month, and flying only twins which have
almost no p-factor with all engines running. As we reached the top of
ground effect, rapidly losiing airspeed and in a wings-level left turn, he
announced: "We're in trouble!" To which I responded: "We're also in a
hell of a right slip!" He then got his right boot down firmly on the rudder
pedal, and we flew away without further incident--although there were no
more downwing touch and goes!

The temperature and humidity appear to have been sufficient to give plenty
of importance to a DA calculation--I know that it is always required--and
probably enough to suggest a fudge factor for the effect of humidity on
available power and required mixture.

The same Fox station had historical weather in Sacremento available, so here
is the range of weather for yesterday, August 31, 2007:

Temperature
Mean Temperature 85 °F 74 °F
Max Temperature 99 °F 90 °F 104 °F (1998)
Min Temperature 71 °F 57 °F 50 °F (1957)
Degree Days
Heating Degree Days 0 0
Month to date heating degree days 0 0
Since 1 July heating degree days 0 0
Cooling Degree Days 20 9
Month to date cooling degree days 329 303
Year to date cooling degree days 979 967
Growing Degree Days 36 (Base - )
Moisture
Dew Point 56 °F
Average Humidity 43
Maximum Humidity 61
Minimum Humidity 24
Precipitation
Precipitation 0.00 in 0.01 in 0.11 in (1964)
Month to date precipitation 0.00 0.06
Year to date precipitation 6.60 12.04
Since 1 July precipitation 0.01 0.11
Snow
Snow 0.00 in - - ()
Month to date snowfall 0.0
Since 1 July snowfall 0.0
Snow Depth 0.00 in
Wind
Wind Speed 5 mph
Max Wind Speed 15 mph
Max Gust Speed 18 mph
Visibility 10 miles
Key: T is trace of precipitation, MM is missing value
Source: NWS Daily Summary

Peter

I was at a poker run a week ago in my A36 with 5 people we took off at BNG
(banning) we were behind a Cherokee 140. We watched the 140 almost crash. I
got on the radio and asked if he was in trouble he replied back yes. I told
him keep the nose down 3 or 4 times as i was watching him. He made it thank
god. My Bonanza has a 1450 useful load with the 5 people and not much fuel
we took right off with no problems.
"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 00:49:10 -0400, NoneYa
wrote:

Maxwell wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com...
http://fox40.trb.com/

In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was at Cameron Park
airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
to the web site and click on "Cameron Park Plane Crash" on the right
side.

It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
--

Looks like he could have increased his odds a bit, if he had used the
rest
of the runway, and/or stayed in ground effect a bit longer.



No flaps!! No lift!!

Many if not most Bonanzas don't use flaps even for short field and
this didn't look short. As some one from there mentioned it's 4000
feet at 1200 MSL. There is no take off maneuver even short field at
high altitude in mine that calls for any use of the flaps.

As to gas, the capacity varies over a wide range. With a newer plane
it varies from 75 to 100 or so depending on the tanks installed and
the size of the Aux tanks.. I can put 600# of fuel in mine and with
1000# useful load it's at best a 3 passenger plane if they are skinny
and no baggage. The F33s reached 1400# useful load so depending on
lots of variables It may or may not be a 4 passenger plane.

They reported it to be a 4 seat, but it sure looked like an A36. Try
as I might I could not come up with a valid N number to check. Nor
could I find anything listed for a Walter Norwood.

Even on a hot day at 1200 feet it should have had the ability to get
in and out of a 4000 foot strip with only moderately rising terrain
and a *light* tail wind.

I can only guess, but two guys I know flew a Cherokee 180 into a grass
strip in the UP of Michigan for a fishing trip. On the day they came
home it was HOT and humid. Basically they were high, hot, humid, and
heavy. The pilot was trying to give the trees at the end of the
runway a wide berth, but they had neither the speed nor power. The
right seater kept telling him to keep the nose now as he was easing it
up. The almost cleared the trees. OTOH they didn't go down, but they
did leave the position lights from both wing tips in the trees and
they still had brush in the landing gear when they got home. Actually
they had a 6" dent just inside the last rib. The pilot once made the
statement, had the right seater kept forcing him to keep the nose
down, they'd never have made it.

I wonder if this wasn't a similar situation but without some one
reminding the pilot to keep the nose down.

Roger

I was at a poker run a week ago in my A36 with 5 people we took off at BNG
(banning) we were behind a Cherokee 140. We watched the 140 almost crash. I
got on the radio and asked if he was in trouble he replied back yes. I told
him keep the nose down 3 or 4 times as i was watching him. He made it thank
god.

A bunch of us witnessed the same thing happen at OSH, when a Beech
Skipper departed Rwy 27 and disappeared behind the mall across Hwy 41
from the airport. One of our group immediately called the tower on
his hand-held, and informed them that a plane may have crashed.

Just then the radio crackled to life, with the voice of a guy who was
clearly under stress, saying "That's us! We think we're running on 3
cylinders, but we're gonna try to make it to Marshfield!"

I watched the papers and NTSB reports after that, and never saw any
accident report, so he apparently made it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Roger (K8RI) wrote:


Many if not most Bonanzas don't use flaps even for short field and
this didn't look short.


The standard Bonanza takeoff is no flaps however using flaps does reduce
ground roll. For an F33 at 2800 pounds on a 32 degree day at 5000 feet
as an example using flaps shortens the takeoff roll. However the no
flap takeoff only needs an extra 70 feet to get off the ground. By
3400 horizontal feet the no flap takeoff has crossed the altitude of the
flap takeoff and is significantly outclimbing it. So the question you
ask yourself is are you trying to get over an obstacle close to the
takeoff point of farther away? If the obstacle is close use flaps, if
not then don't. For the takeoff in the video no flaps was correct.





As some one from there mentioned it's 4000
feet at 1200 MSL. There is no take off maneuver even short field at
high altitude in mine that calls for any use of the flaps.


My S35 does call for flaps to clear an obstacle.




As to gas, the capacity varies over a wide range. With a newer plane
it varies from 75 to 100 or so depending on the tanks installed and
the size of the Aux tanks.. I can put 600# of fuel in mine and with
1000# useful load it's at best a 3 passenger plane if they are skinny
and no baggage. The F33s reached 1400# useful load so depending on
lots of variables It may or may not be a 4 passenger plane.

They reported it to be a 4 seat, but it sure looked like an A36. Try
as I might I could not come up with a valid N number to check. Nor
could I find anything listed for a Walter Norwood.



It's a mid 70's A36 which would have 80 gallons onboard assuming no tip
tanks.

"Newps" wrote

For the takeoff in the video no flaps was correct.

Could it be considered helpful to get off the ground quicker, so you could
suck up the gear and accelerate while still in ground effect?

Of course, if you had to call it that close, the decision to take off with
all of the weight would be the wrong decision, anyway, so it goes back to no
flaps being correct.

I have heard of some people doing the takeoff run with no flaps, and
slightly before rotation, pop the first notch of flaps down, then milk them
up once speed and climb is obtained.

Seems like it would work, but it also seems pretty marginal to be calling it
that close.

Well, the heat seems like it may finally be slacking off around here in the
coming week. It has been over 90 every day in August, with many, (check
that) most days over 96, and several days over 100, and several record daily
highs, and even a couple ALL TIME, ANY DAY record highs. It may finally be
time to go up with my friend and get some flying in. I can't begin to say
how much I am looking forward to it, but as he has said, "it's just too damn
hot to have any fun in an airplane, at these temperatures!"
--
Jim in NC