Ft. Morgan CO AirCam crash

denverpilot

denverpilot

Tied Down
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
55,469
Location
Denver, CO
Display Name
Display name:
DenverPilot
Ouch.

4b94241c-3436-61ea.jpg
 
I'll be interested to hear what all transpired. Air Cams are so slow, it's hard to imagine a crash that bad. It looks terrible.
 
Florida Cracker said:
Air Cams are so slow, it's hard to imagine a crash that bad. It looks terrible.
Click to expand...
I think there is an old aviation saying - "The Piper Cub is the safest airplane in the world; it can just barely kill you"

I would imagine an Air Cam would be pretty close.
 
> Air Cams are so slow, it's hard to imagine a crash that bad.

Not a lot of structure (crumple zone) to sacrifice for the protection
of the occupants.

Anyone seen a report re: how much experience the pilot had in the AirCam?
 
Fearless Tower said:
I think there is an old aviation saying - "The Piper Cub is the safest airplane in the world; it can just barely kill you"

I would imagine an Air Cam would be pretty close.
Click to expand...

I am NOT arguing but those things are so slow, I can't imagine how he got into so much trouble. Can't.
 
Florida Cracker said:
I am NOT arguing but those things are so slow, I can't imagine how he got into so much trouble. Can't.
Click to expand...

Stall it and hit the ground in an unusual attitude.

Drag a wingtip when you're maneuvering at low altitude.

Catch a gust when you're landing in a crosswind and cartwheel.

As someone else posted, there is very little protection unless you touch down wheels first.
 
Florida Cracker said:
I am NOT arguing but those things are so slow, I can't imagine how he got into so much trouble. Can't.
Click to expand...

I have NO ideas what conditions were like, but wind, and weather can change in Colorado in a nano second, so I can certainly understand how that "could" happen. Not saying that was the cause.
 
There's an Air Cam at the airport I'm at now. Looks like fun but there's
no protection. You're out there in the wind. With two engines it takes
off in about 100 feet.

RT
 
When you have a 75 year old pilot dying in a slow simple aircraft you have to question which came first, the death or the crash.
 
Anthony said:
I have NO ideas what conditions were like, but wind, and weather can change in Colorado in a nano second, so I can certainly understand how that "could" happen. Not saying that was the cause.
Click to expand...

I was planning either Salida or Canon City on Monday, but the winds north of I-70 along the Front Range were in the 20s with gusts in the 40s until after lunch time. Winds aloft were in the 30-40s, yet south - perfectly calm.

Typical Colorado weather.
 
murphey said:
I was planning either Salida or Canon City on Monday, but the winds north of I-70 along the Front Range were in the 20s with gusts in the 40s until after lunch time. Winds aloft were in the 30-40s, yet south - perfectly calm.

Typical Colorado weather.
Click to expand...

Sounds a little "sporty"
 
> I can't imagine how he got into so much trouble.

Perhaps it is a matter of inexperience?

When I was denied a Medical, I first transitioned to flying ultralights ... and the AirCam
flight characteristics are likely closer to an ultralight than a Cessna/Piper/Beech/etc.

My experiences when making the transition:

- The sight picture is VERY different. Minimal glareshield/horizon reference.

- The drag profile is VERY different. When you pull the power back, they
slowdown RIGHT NOW. i.e. They are about as streamlined as a parachute.

- The wind in the face may provide an illusion of speed, when in fact, you
may be too slow.

- The thrust line of the engine is quite different, and pitch/power
relationships may be exaggerated.

- In many taildraggers, the pilot sits somewhat above the main gear axles.
Typically, just a bit behind the main gear axles. No so for the AirCam. I can
imagine that yawing motions are exaggerated during ground runs.
 
Last edited:
rainsux said:
> I can't imagine how he got into so much trouble.

Perhaps it is a matter of inexperience?

When I was denied a Medical, I first transitioned to flying ultralights ... and the AirCam
flight characteristics are likely closer to an ultralight than a Cessna/Piper/Beech/etc.

My experiences when making the transition:

- The sight picture is VERY different. Minimal glareshield/horizon reference.

- The drag profile is VERY different. When you pull the power back, they
slowdown RIGHT NOW. i.e. They are about as streamlined as a parachute.

- The wind in the face may provide an illusion of speed, when in fact, you
may be too slow.

- The thrust line of the engine is quite different, and pitch/power
relationships may be exaggerated.

- In many taildraggers, the pilot sits somewhat above the main gear axles.
Typically, just a bit behind the main gear axles. No so for the AirCam. I can
imagine that yawing motions are exaggerated during ground runs.
Click to expand...

I really wasn't arguing on behalf of my point. As little as I know about aircams, beyond watching the two at my field, would be like trying to explain nuclear physics from a lawnmower manual.
Just thinking that as slow as an aircam is, how could he cause that much damage on liftoff. Unless the ones I've seen are different, they take off at a fast bicycle pace. You could easily get lulled into thinking, 'no matter what happens, just put the nose down a little and everything will get better,' which is a variation on, get-home-itis.
I'm interested to hear the rest of the details and see how they square with my perception of the aircam.
Henning made a good point. If he had a stroke or some other debilitating episode, then anything is possible.
 
Last edited:
RogerT said:
There's an Air Cam at the airport I'm at now. Looks like fun but there's
no protection. You're out there in the wind. With two engines it takes
off in about 100 feet.

RT
Click to expand...

If you ever watched the TV series 'Planet Earth,' many of the shots were taken in Air Cam for that very reason. Low slow and short take-offs.
 
And the damn things are twins, with the engines close together. Not like the engine unexpectedly koncked out.
 
steingar said:
And the damn things are twins, with the engines close together. Not like the engine unexpectedly koncked out.
Click to expand...

One could have run out of fuel... not saying that happened, but there's many ways to kill both mills on a twin...

I haven't heard anything more locally since the accident... one of the Colorado Aviation Photographers group who happened to shoot some photos of the accident aircraft flying prior to the crash was asked for the photos by the NTSB.
 
steingar said:
And the damn things are twins, with the engines close together. Not like the engine unexpectedly koncked out.
Click to expand...

I heard a guy that sometimes flies the Aircams at our field claim (he says) they and take off and climb on one engine. That seems a little hard but they are light and so slow, maybe they don't need all that much to get off and going.
 
Florida Cracker said:
I heard a guy that sometimes flies the Aircams at our field claim (he says) they and take off and climb on one engine. That seems a little hard but they are light and so slow, maybe they don't need all that much to get off and going.
Click to expand...

The Aero Commander made a certification flight from the factory to DC with one of the props in the cabin which, if I remember the story correctly, also gained it the distinction of being the smallest aircraft to serve as AF1.

That said, only an idiot would depart the ground with one engine caged intentionally for no good reason. I watched a guy with a 337 'prove' he could take off on the back engine... right into the power wires (if he had been smart he would have gone under and stayed in G/E until he got the front started) at the end of a 3500' runway.:rofl:
 
> the damn things are twins, with the engines close together. Not like the
> engine unexpectedly koncked out.

If it happened near or below Vmc, it may indeed be sporty. I have no idea re:
vertical stab & rudder effectiveness, or rudder forces in an AirCam when only
one engine is running.
 
The mission of the aircam, when Phil and company 'invented' it, was to have a very stable, slow, twin that could fly low over the rain forest and take pictures for Nat'l Geographic. It seems to be one of those planes people own because they're so crazy looking.
The two I know about are in mint condition. The owners seem to be flying them pretty much every weekend that I am out at the field but take exquisite care of both.
I've seen them take off into a stiff wind and it almost seemed like they were backing up, they got so slow.
I've always wanted to fly one to see what it's like.
 
Last edited:
I looked a long time at the one on amphibs at OSH... They remind me of the old WWI bombers.
 
Henning said:
The Aero Commander made a certification flight from the factory to DC with one of the props in the cabin which, if I remember the story correctly, also gained it the distinction of being the smallest aircraft to serve as AF1.
Click to expand...
Correct on both. Ike was flown around in an AC 500.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top