Good News, Bad News

Well, Mrs. Lincoln, other than that, how was the airshow???

We flew PT-19s at the Fullerton Airport on Saturday and trained 80 kids.

Then the Trimotor (full scale replica) crashed, and that was the end of the day. I had never seen a disaster like that, and it was a really strange feeling to watch it happen over, perhaps, 15 seconds, knowing what you are seeing, not being able to do anything, and knowing what is coming.

The current word is that there were two people in the plane (the next flight was to carry passengers!) and both survived, though in critical condition the last I heard. The plane hit a car, and the women in the car survived too, mostly injured by the airbag deployment.

Anyway, back to the training. I had modified a Cetaphil soap bottle to be a pump fueller, and 4 squirts was the perfect amount for a nice training flight (10 squirts fills the tank). We were flying on 30' Spiderwire lines, and the planes were solid. Twice, the engine bands let go and the engine/lg went flying. Not cool! I am going to put a wire retainer on my PT-19 before I use it again.

Pegasus Hobbies was kind enough to donate a gift certificate and a kit for a raffle. It occured to me afterward, that here we have 80 new phone numbers of people who have aviation interest! What a way to gain database. I'm sure glad we didn't just chuck out the tickets after the drawing. <G> I will copy off the names and numbers for our club and also for Pegasus.

So, what have we learned? We only needed 2 airplanes for that many kids. (We actually hav 6 or so ready to go) Having 2, we could be flying one while rubber-banding the other back together. There was only one structural failure, the retaining tab on one rudder broke away. Easily replaced or repaired.

Second, be sure to have information to hand out giving your club and flying site data and a list of regional hobby shops.

Finally, 2-year olds like to fly models too!

Larry,

Great going with the kids!

I can identify with your feelings on the crash. I remember watching a Beech twin flat spin around a dead engine onto the roof of a supermarket. I remember running with my hands out as if I could catch it and gently set it on the ground. Fortunately there were only a couple people in the store at the time and they only received minor cuts from flying glass (God must have been with them). I can still see the big windows bowing out then bursting.

Larry,

I have a PT-19 made in early 1990's, in good flying condition, but less engine. Would the current 049 "killer bee" (the one sold by tower hobbies) fit the fuselage slot and be suitable for training kids (or, well ok - maybe just some nostalgic fun flying for myself)?

I have been asked by a spectator "arent you a bit old to be playing with toy airplanes?" My answer is "Yes I am, but it hasnt stopped me yet."

The product engine sold by tower should just drop in.

I only saw a little bit of the Tri crash. Do you/they know what happened yet? Like Reno, I have very few sources of information around here. The local news guys say, WOW, look an airplane crashed. Neglected to even mention it was a Tri-motor. Whaddatheyknow?

I haven't heard anything, but there is a bit of a slide show on the web, and you can see that the ailerons are cranked over trying to prevent the roll. I suppose that a failed rudder could dominate at that slow speed, since the plane turned left immediately on takeoff, right over the crowd.

There was an excellent shot on CNN of the crash. It appeared to be taking off without enough power. Dropped off and banked to the left. The whole thing looks like slow motion and you do feel helpless watching it. I hope the pilots recover OK.

My dad sent his three sons up in one at an airshow in about 1966 (I are the youngest). Sitting there on a wooden bench seat, I was petrified (at six years of age). Probably diidn't want to spend the extra money for his own self.

My old man did a lot of cool things for his kids.

I only saw a short clip where a 'vintage' aeroplane had crashed, and not enough to know what it was. Then again, I usually avert my eyes to such things. Glad to know no one died, and I'll leave it at that.

I have been replaying the scene in my head, and here is what I THINK may have happened.

I suspect some control failure on takeoff caused the plane to yaw hard left just as it was approaching the crowded area of the ramp near the tower. My guess is that the pilot knew he couldn't get straightened out or stopped in time to miss the crowd and jerked the plane into the air to try to clear them. It was clear that the plane was aimed hard left, though quite level at first as it came into view.

It was climbing extremely slowly at a very high angle. At that point it slowly rolled to the left and cleared the crowd and buildings. When it hit, it was nearly straight down and slightly inverted.

My take is that the pilot chose to try the maneuver to save the crowd when he could have killed the engines and just taxied right through them, which would have caused multiple deaths and injuries.

Strictly my take on the affair. Since the pilot and mechanic both lived, we should be able to find out what really happened.

LAST EDITED ON Sep-28-04 AT 03:33 PM (CDT)
 
Larry,
I believe I may have a good idea about the nature and cause of the Bushmaster crash.

The owner, Bud Fuchs, and I used to fly together and I flew for his operation in St. Louis. When he bought the Bushmaster I was the first to get a type rating in it. Our examiner flew the Ford 4AT out of Kalamazoo and was an FAA examiner. No Bushmaster qualified DE's where known.

The Bushmaster has a large fin and rudder in comparison to the Ford. My examiner told of the high speed VMC and high control forces necessary to maintain directional control during an outboard engine failure with high power on the other engines.

I was impressed with this story, because during the engine failure exercises the Bushmaster exhibited high control forces. The VMC was relatively low. (I found out the difference between the Ford and Bushmaster VMC speeds is a few percent but in comparison to the cruise speed it is "relatively" high).

My scenario , with all due respect to those flying the airplane, would most likely be an outboard engine failure on an outboard engine, with a corresponding rapid yaw towards the failed engine. A hard strong jab to the rudder pedal, and strong pedal pressure to hold it there at full deflection, is required and without any hesitation because the rudder is minimally effective at liftoff speeds against this type of failure. On a narrow airfield layout like Fullerton there would be no room for error. If the directional control could not be maintained, a quick reduction in power on the engines producing power and controls in the direction necessary, is required.

As far as the idea that the crowd was saved, the accident needn't have happened at all. The pilot always should have a plan for an engine failure in each direction, and be able to maintain direction with in 5 degress either direction. In certain airplanes on the airshow circuit, such as the B-25, the VMC 145 and the airplane lifts off at 90 knots. If there is an engine failure between liftoff and the "takeoff safety speed" of 145 knots ( now known as VMC), you will not be able to maintain directional controll by ruder and aerodynamic controls alone. A retardation of power on the running engine will be required and continued flight will not be assured.

Operating these aircraft is a serious business and it is unfortunate that this accident happened. It is especially close to home as I not only flew this very airplane, but was witness to it's construction during the 60's and 70's at Long Beach Airport.

Hey Chris

Will you please explain how that happended again, Only, I want percise technical data done in a different language...LOL
Love DAvid

Sorry Dave,
I just noticed that VMC is never explained . It is Velocity, Minimum Control and is basically the lowest speed in which the aerodynamic controls can overcome the assymetric thrust encountered when an engine fails on a multi engined aiplane with engines off of the fuselage centerline.
Chris...

I have talked with the owner of the Bushmaster a couple of times since the crash. The rudder lock was still in place when they took off. They had used a cargo strap to hold the rudder over left. The pilot perceived the hard left turn as an engine out on that side and reacted appropriately. Unfortunately, that wasn't the problem. The pilot was burned and the copilot has a broken back. Beyond the human anquish, I'm especially saddened by the loss of this airplane since I'm the one who found it for Bud. He named her Buffy and made me the Godfather. I've flown her too, Chris. What a neat experience!

Bob

Bob

Isn't a walk around and full control check part of starting procedure? At least you would think that the rudder pedals should have felt awfully funny taxiing to takeoff (it was a taildragger, no?)

Any word on the pilot's recovery?

LAST EDITED ON Oct-11-04 AT 10:55 PM (CDT)
 
Yes Larry,
The control check would be a good start to discovering one didn't do an adequate pre-flight.

Taxiing with brakes and differential thrust without full use of the rudder is an improper technique that some use, also a set-up for not discovering you don't have full travel. Proper technique (read; what I teach, anyway!) in order of action is rudder, opposite aileron, differential throttle, then brake application.

Hi Bob, sorry to hear of the needlessness of the accident.
(I am trying to forgive you for finding the Not-a-Ford as I was quite happy flying Bud's Staggerwing, Aerobatic Bonanza and N3N)!

Larry:

Another small point in addition the very accurate comments by Chris and several others is that once you get into a stall situation, many aircraft will get into what my instructors call aileron reversal. Effectively they either do nothing or aggrevate the situation. In a stall the rule was always "ailerons neutral and level the wings with opposite rudder". This situation was far more prevelant on the old designs.

Chris McMillin would be more expert than I am on the reason but my understanding is that the raised aileron which normally lowered the wing effectively provided "washout" in a stall condition allowing THAT wing to provide lift and raise itself while the other side effectively "washed in" increasing the stall and reducing lift. Also, the lowered aileron creates much more drag than the raised one, aggrevating the unwanted turn.

In any case, it is a tragedy. I watched a Thorpe T-18 crash at Oshkosh some years ago and that picture still comes back to me, not as a haunting image, but as a reminder to take that extra step to assure safety.

We can all do two things: If you're so inclined, put the victims and their families in your prayers, and learn whatever lessons can be learned from this tragedy so as not to each have to personally "re-invent the wheel".

I have seen the aileron reversal stall in an RC model.

A friend was making a low, slow turn at high g's, and the model suddenly flipped into an opposite roll and spiralled in. A classic death maneuver for budding pilots, I understand.

The reversal was incredibly fast as the lift went away on the high wing.