Air show plane goes down

S

Steven8385

Pre-Flight
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
94
Location
NY
Display Name
Display name:
Steven8385
Acro plane practicing at KSWF for the airshow went down today, and pilot died. From the one picture I saw it looks like he snapped the tail off.
 
That pic shows it pretty clearly - tail broke off. That's what happened but why it broke will take some investigation.
 
It unfortunately looks like his plane. Another horrible incident. RIP.
 
Mistake Not... said:
Wonder if a BRS would have helped...
Click to expand...

Turningfinal said:
Would've at least been worth a shot.
Click to expand...

Not exactly a simple task to design, install, and test (you're on your own for all of that) a BRS system on just any airplane. For purpose-built, high performance aerobatic airplanes, this is added weight, cost, complexity and risk that nobody is going to touch. Most pilots of these ships wear chutes and can bail in a matter of seconds. You're not always high enough or have enough time to use a chute no matter what it's mounted to.
 
RotorDude said:
Looking at the loads his tail must carry during his "normal" routine, I can imagine there isn't much room for error. :sad:
Click to expand...

Well the disturbing thing is these types of airplanes are SUPPOSED to have lots of room for "error" as you put it. He just did the usual stuff with it. Nothing out of the ordinary for this type of airplane.
 
N801BH said:
:confused::confused::confused::confused::dunno:
Click to expand...

G limit is a wing limitation...or in the cases of the carbon ships possibly even an engine mount limitation. Simply pulling or pushing G at high speed does not put a lot of stress on the tail. Full deflections of the rudder and elevator as for high speed snaps and tumbles loads the tail much more, in an eccentric fashion that sandbag testing of the wing has no relation to.
 
Last edited:
RoscoeT said:
G limit is a wing limitation...or in the cases of the carbon ships possibly even an engine mount limitation. Simply pulling or pushing G at high speed does not put a lot of stress on the tail. Full deflections of the rudder and elevator as for high speed snaps and tumbles loads the tail much more, in an eccentric fashion that sandbag testing of the wing has no relation to.
Click to expand...

Yes. I was referring to abrupt tail control surface deflections, as seen in the video, in my comment above.
 
RotorDude said:
Yes. I was referring to abrupt tail control surface deflections, as seen in the video, in my comment above.
Click to expand...

Maybe I am not seeing the actual failure.. but .. the video shows a pitch up from low level and while heading up at a fairly straight path there is a disturbance of the smoke, then a further pitch up and a over the top loop and straight into the ground.. At what stage do you guys see the tail failure.:dunno::dunno::confused:
 
RoscoeT said:
G limit is a wing limitation...or in the cases of the carbon ships possibly even an engine mount limitation. Simply pulling or pushing G at high speed does not put a lot of stress on the tail. Full deflections of the rudder and elevator as for high speed snaps and tumbles loads the tail much more, in an eccentric fashion that sandbag testing of the wing has no relation to.
Click to expand...

True, but one can calculate the load on the empanage for a full deflection rudder kick. Structure should of been designed for a factor of safety of 150%.
 
N801BH said:
Maybe I am not seeing the actual failure.. but .. the video shows a pitch up from low level and while heading up at a fairly straight path there is a disturbance of the smoke, then a further pitch up and a over the top loop and straight into the ground.. At what stage do you guys see the tail failure.:dunno::dunno::confused:
Click to expand...

I was referring to the performance video from 2014 that I linked in my message above. Here it is again: https://player.vimeo.com/video/115319651
(E.g. elevator deflection at 02:53)
 
Last edited:
N801BH said:
Yeah....

I watched it... Pretty impressive but the rudder is so large I don't see alot of deflection in it...

I was referring to the crash sequence seen on the TV stations video..
Click to expand...

That crash video, which showed the tail separating, seems to have been pulled. I can't find it anymore. I didn't see any abrupt maneuver preceding it, AFAIR, but I'd like to check it again. Of course, it's possible it was some gradual internal failure due to loose or improper hardware, like the one in Reno.
 
Last edited:
RotorDude said:
That crash video, which showed the tail separating, seems to have been pulled. I can't find it anymore. I didn't see any abrupt maneuver preceding it, AFAIR, but I'd like to check it again. Of course, it's possible it was some gradual internal failure due to loose or improper hardware, like the one in Reno.
Click to expand...

Yup.... Maybe flutter...:redface:
 
The sequence of photos pretty clearly show the tail breaking off the airplane. Watching the routine my thought would be long term fatigue from repeated high stress maneuvers.
 
Snapping puts a big torsional load on the tail that has little to do with statically loading the wing. The Giles is a pretty robust plane, but the multiple inside snaps on a 45 down line that the air show pilots perform at high speed really stresses the airframe.
 
FBH, at 0:48 of the news report link you see the tail section come off. Sad deal. The guy did things most would only dream of.
 
Wondering if this will perhaps precipitate some new inspection techniques, or at least some new testing to keep that from happening. Must have been awful being a phenomenal pilot but not knowing why you suddenly lost control and knowing there was literally nothing you could do that was working.
 
Rcmutz said:
True, but one can calculate the load on the empanage for a full deflection rudder kick. Structure should of been designed for a factor of safety of 150%.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Richard Giles would benefit from hearing from you on how he "should of" designed the airplane.
 
RotorDude said:
That crash video, which showed the tail separating, seems to have been pulled. I can't find it anymore. I didn't see any abrupt maneuver preceding it, AFAIR, but I'd like to check it again. Of course, it's possible it was some gradual internal failure due to loose or improper hardware, like the one in Reno.
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges.

. The loss of GG was not due to structural failure, yes the trim tab failed and caused the pitch up, but the airframe minus the trim tab was intact at impact. The cause was LOC due to the g force of the pitch up. This was structural failure due to unknown cause at this time.

As composites do not display fatigue like metal does it will take the NTSB lab some time to find the failure point, my guess it will be a small defect in the layup that was not detected or possibly not detectable at manufacture. it is possible that a hardware failure caused a full control deflection and cause the torsional force( it appears to me that the tail twisted befor failing from the video) that caused the failure. But even then most of those aircraft are flown with full an rapid control deflection in their routines.

This is one that the answer will only be found once the NTSB lab people get their chance to investigate.

This is a very sad event and may mr wright rest in peace.
 
Andrew Wright flew in both of our last airshows here in Shawnee and was planned for our upcoming airshow in Oct. Really slick plane and flying abilities. RIP :(
 
sbUdDYs.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top