Is it just me that thinks this was stupid

"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

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.

"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.

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...cs/q0130.shtml

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

Kev

"Blanche" wrote in message
...

Can you have "ground effect" over water?


Yes, if you are low enough.

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

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....

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.

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

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