Another Homebuilt Crash.....

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by SteveinIndy, May 10, 2009.

  1. SteveinIndy

    SteveinIndy Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    522
    Location:
    Under the pattern at KIND

    Display name:
    SteveinIndy
    SOURCE: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6417238.html

    My condolences to the victim's friends and family.
     
  2. SteveinIndy

    SteveinIndy Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    522
    Location:
    Under the pattern at KIND

    Display name:
    SteveinIndy
    Sorry to hear about your friend. Please pass along my condolences to his family if you speak to them. I agree, but think it's shaping up to be a bad month....we're only 10 days in and we've lost 14 people in 6 accidents.
     
  3. Dave Krall CFII

    Dave Krall CFII En-Route

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,890
    Location:
    Seattle WA

    Display name:
    Dave Krall CFII SEL SES
    Condolences.
    Do you happen to know what the typical endurance of his plane was?

     
  4. Anthony

    Anthony Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    18,419

    Display name:
    Anthony

    4+ hours in the air does sound like a long time. I do not know this airplane so I don't want to even speculate.
     
  5. Geico266

    Geico266 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    19,143
    Location:
    Husker Nation, NE

    Display name:
    Geico
    The Velosity is a high performance aircraft that carries 70 gallons. (93 gallons optional tank) No flaps, lands fast, uses lots of runway.

    http://www.velocityaircraft.com/
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2009
  6. Lawreston

    Lawreston En-Route

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    4,561
    Location:
    Georgetown, ME

    Display name:
    Harley Reich
    Visited Wiscasset KIWI, from New York.

    HR
     

    Attached Files:

  7. gismo

    gismo Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Messages:
    12,559
    Location:
    Minneapolis

    Display name:
    iGismo
    Not enough apparently. I good friend of mine ran his Velocity out of gas in IMC at night about 30 nm from his destination after flying for about 4 hours. He was also killed in the ensuing crash landing. The similarities to this accident are eerie. He and I co-owned an aerobatic biplane in the past and he was a very experienced IFR pilot as well. I never knew him to stretch his fuel either but given that his fatal flight lasted almost exactly as long as his fuel endurance suggests that he had a serious and uncharacteristic lapse of good judgement.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2009
  8. Doggtyred

    Doggtyred En-Route

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,572
    Location:
    Houston area, Texas

    Display name:
    Dave
    At 75% cruise with recommended engines you are looking at about 4 hours. Obviously you can pull that throttle back and add hours at lower speeds. Max range usually netted 5 hours, and I never did the math for max endurance..

    It would really really suck if this came down to fuel starvation..
    Dave
     
  9. wabower

    wabower Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,017

    Display name:
    Wayne
    About the time you think you've heard it all, something like this shows up. Not that it can't happen, but the question is if you wanted to land tail-first in any airplane, how would you go about doing so? Tail slide from 10'? FWIW, my bet would be that whoever reported the crash found the engine/prop sticking up out of the wreckage, and everybody knows that airplane engines are on the front. That means it must have landed on the tail.

     
  10. PilotPhil

    PilotPhil Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    Messages:
    3

    Display name:
    PilotPhil
    Was N274JP the accident aircraft???

    I have a few friends building/flying velocities in the Houston area and I haven't been able to locate the tail number. Just hoping it isn't one of those folks.

    Phil
    Kingwood, Tx
    Vice President: EAA Chapt 12
     
  11. wanttaja

    wanttaja Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,077
    Location:
    Seattle

    Display name:
    Ron Wanttaja
    FAA Preliminary says N45YV

    Ron Wanttaja
     
  12. PilotPhil

    PilotPhil Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    Messages:
    3

    Display name:
    PilotPhil
    Would a canard that has departed the airframe or been damaged cause a canard-type plane to drop tail first?

    Similar to a traditional plane if the Horizontal Stab is removed from the airframe?
     
  13. tonycondon

    tonycondon Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    15,263
    Location:
    Wichita, KS

    Display name:
    Tony
    a canard holds the nose up. CG is in front of the center of lift of the wing. If the canard departs, the nose will drop, significantly.

    You are thinking about a "traditional" tailplane wrong. The typical horizontal surface provides downforce, which also holds the nose up. if the horizontal tailplane on your typical airplane departs, the nose will also drop, significantly.

    There may be some models out there in which the horizontal surface on the tail provides an upforce, but in that case, the CG would have to be behind the center of lift of the wing in order for the airplane to be stable. In that sort of airplane, losing the horizontal tailplane would cause the nose to pitch up, significantly.
     
  14. PilotPhil

    PilotPhil Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    Messages:
    3

    Display name:
    PilotPhil
    Yeah, that's what I meant, but I didn't articulate that very well. On a traditional plane, the HS provides downforce to hold the nose up. If it left the airframe, the nose would drop.

    My instinct makes me think that would be the opposite on a canard-type; with the canard provides downforce to keep the tail up. But that still seems a bit wrong, since the canards are always stored nose down. (Indicating a CG forward of the wings)

    But I never realized that a canard provides up-force. I always figured with the engine in the back, it would make the plane tail heavy and require downforce.

    You learn something new every day. I just learned something, now I can go to bed and it's only 10:41 AM!

    Thanks,
    Phil
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2009
  15. tonycondon

    tonycondon Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    15,263
    Location:
    Wichita, KS

    Display name:
    Tony
    yes the canard provides an upforce. the whole idea of the canard 'efficiency' is that the wing isnt fighting the tail, so the weight of the wing has to support less than the weight of the airplane with a canard, and more than the weight of the airplane with a downforcing tail. in theory, it works that way.
     
  16. rottydaddy

    rottydaddy En-Route

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,477
    Location:
    Newark, NJ

    Display name:
    beaky
    I thought the main purpose of the canard (vs a horizontal stab in the rear) was to provide better low-speed manners... if A of A is increased too much, the canard will stall first, and lower the nose so the wing will never reach that critical point. (??) I mean, it also does what a horizontal stab does, but putting it forward of the wing is to prevent a full stall from developing, right?

    I've heard of these canard types "mushing in", more or less out of control at extremely high A of A... apparently this safety factor does not always work, sort of like how other "stall-proof" types can come to grief. Not sure how it happens to a canard-equipped plane with this wing planform, but I have heard that there have been similar accidents where the occupants were unharmed.
     
  17. tonycondon

    tonycondon Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    15,263
    Location:
    Wichita, KS

    Display name:
    Tony
    yea that's the other idea. it certainly provides stall resistance. that comes at the sacrifice of manueverability of course, by limiting the deflection on the canard.
     
  18. gismo

    gismo Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Messages:
    12,559
    Location:
    Minneapolis

    Display name:
    iGismo
    Another "advantage" of a canard design is that (properly designed) the main wing is unstallable because the canard will lose lift more quickly than the main wing at high AoA. This does come with a downside, since you can't stall the landing speed must be higher than it would be if you could stall the main wing.
     
  19. tonycondon

    tonycondon Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    15,263
    Location:
    Wichita, KS

    Display name:
    Tony
    yea, thats also what killed Rutans Solitaire motor glider. It looked cool but didnt thermal worth a crap, because it couldnt get slow enough.