Gender reveal gone very wrong.

As much as I hate 'gender reveal' video ridiculousness, nothing in that video looked terribly egregious. The pull up didn't seem overly aggressive for that airplane either.

Guess they will find a significant pre-existing issue in the wing attach....if they do any kind of significant investigation (it is Mexico).
 
As much as I hate 'gender reveal' video ridiculousness, nothing in that video looked terribly egregious. The pull up didn't seem overly aggressive for that airplane either.

Guess they will find a significant pre-existing issue in the wing attach....if they do any kind of significant investigation (it is Mexico).
That's what I was thinking too, probably a corrosion issue or a previous overstress event that gave way. Terrible way to go.
 
Guess they will find a significant pre-existing issue in the wing attach....if they do any kind of significant investigation (it is Mexico).
The PA-25 Pawnee is a strut-braced low-wing airplane. Probably strut failure.

1693751615056.png
 
Yeah, maybe not high G, but he was pulling up, the wing did fold, something not right.

I can’t blame it on the gender reveal party itself, silly as they can be. Sad that the pilot augured in, at least the wreckage didn’t take others out.
 
Scary. :eek:

I've got hundreds of hours in Pawnees, three of them yesterday towing in and out of wave rotor. Both Pawnees are well maintained, however.
 
Most likely the thing was previously overstressed. There was a crash of a Partenavia that was doing "Hoover-esque" acro and the wings folded during a relatively benign pass.

My neighbor had a similar reveal (blue smoke during a low pass down the runway).

They stopped inviting me to these events after I revealed my gender to the rest of the party.
 
Not a duster pilot myself, but I thought I had been told that when dumping the rapid shift in weight and CG imposes loads on the aircraft. The combination of those loads from the dump and the show off yank of the stick may have overloaded an already tired airframe.
 
Sounds like that plane has been on the coast for the past 20 years and was a corroded POS.
 
Found this interesting:
Tad Leeds:
whenever doing an emergency hopper dump, pilots must be ready for the impending changes to the center of gravity of the plane, the resultant immediate pitch up that would ensue and the dynamics that that puts upon the pilot themselves.
For suddenly, heavy G loading and the pilot is pushing the stick all the way forward trying to correct that immediate up. This then makes the pilot weightless floating in his harness his feet above the rudder pedals. If that pilot is even a heartbeat behind the plane it is not going to result in a very positive day for them as reflected in this video.
Whether a brand new pilot or a seasoned veteran this very action must be practiced and understood for each individual plane that they may do the procedure in. That is to say if the pilot was familiar with his procedure in another plane, and attempted it in a like model those two planes could respond very differently.
 
Found this interesting:
Tad Leeds:
whenever doing an emergency hopper dump, pilots must be ready for the impending changes to the center of gravity of the plane, the resultant immediate pitch up that would ensue and the dynamics that that puts upon the pilot themselves.
For suddenly, heavy G loading and the pilot is pushing the stick all the way forward trying to correct that immediate up. This then makes the pilot weightless floating in his harness his feet above the rudder pedals. If that pilot is even a heartbeat behind the plane it is not going to result in a very positive day for them as reflected in this video.
Whether a brand new pilot or a seasoned veteran this very action must be practiced and understood for each individual plane that they may do the procedure in. That is to say if the pilot was familiar with his procedure in another plane, and attempted it in a like model those two planes could respond very differently.
Or he further aggravated the pitch up and G loading by further pulling as part of the "fly-by".
 
This thing was loaded with a bunch of powder or something else light. Not water. Little weight.
 
Didn't know that what they dump is corrosive.
Terrifying to watch.
 
This thing was loaded with a bunch of powder or something else light. Not water. Little weight.
Upon further review, you have a point. Certainly not a full hopper of colored water but it could be a light surry of water and powder. Something has to have enough mass to drop. Will have to see what they say. Wing folding at the root is going to have some interesting details. RIP.
 
Not a duster pilot myself, but I thought I had been told that when dumping the rapid shift in weight and CG imposes loads on the aircraft. The combination of those loads from the dump and the show off yank of the stick may have overloaded an already tired airframe.
The weight certainly goes down, but the mass of the load is pretty much at the center of lift, so CG moves little.
 
I am in Mexico for a few days and local tv reported the device used to creat the pink smoke acted like a pipe bomb…but once again no clue if it’s true..
 
I am in Mexico for a few days and local tv reported the device used to creat the pink smoke acted like a pipe bomb…but once again no clue if it’s true..
I hope its the pipe bomb that caused this or whatever reqson by the special effects. I can understand that. Anything else freaks me out. You guys talking about corrosion or prior stress event. That could be any flippin Cessna or Piper we fly and I hardly trust our mexhanics to be 100% right when checking my airframe.
 
I am in Mexico for a few days and local tv reported the device used to creat the pink smoke acted like a pipe bomb…but once again no clue if it’s true..
It looked just like a tank that was dumped.
 
Agreed it looked like a hopper dump of colored powder or water.
 
The Pawnee is not an aerobatic airplane, or even utility. It is certified for normal and restricted categories. That means a 3.8 limit load factor.
 
It sure looks to me (but impossible to tell) on the video that an abrupt pull-up preceded the deformation of the wing's relationship to the fuselage. But it's also hard to believe that there wasn't some kind of pre-existing weakness of wing and/or strut as well.
 
Va decreases with light loads. Responsiveness improves with light loads. It’s conceivable the airframe was simply overstressed.
Juan Browne just released a video on this... IHO, sudden release of the load (possibly 1200 lbs) decreased the Va as the pilot yanked back on the yoke- and he exceeded the design limits and over G'd/ broke the plane. As a student, I had to do a bit more reading on Va, and "stalls before you break it" to get a better understanding of this. That said, what would the effect be on the same aircraft dumping 1200 lbs almost instantaneously- had the pilot not pulled back for a steep climb? If the load were at the CG, would the sudden loss of weight increase airspeed/lift rapidly enough to still be a problem- or would it be more gradual/controllable?
 
It sure looks to me (but impossible to tell) on the video that an abrupt pull-up preceded the deformation of the wing's relationship to the fuselage. But it's also hard to believe that there wasn't some kind of pre-existing weakness of wing and/or strut as well.
You don't have to yank back to be suddenly lighter. The "dump" option is generally for emergencies. Normally, spray planes are losing their load slowly, not all at once. If you look in the comments of Juan's video, the ag guys know this.

Sample comments:

User Bullthrush:
Dumping the hopper causes an extreme nose up trim, it will take you by surprise if your not ready for it. A massive push on the stick is required during the dump. I am guessing he was a banner or glider tow pilot, not an ag pilot.

User larryvrooman4672
As someone who owns and flies a PA-25-235 Pawnee for aerial application, I’d like to clarify a few things:
1) A Pawnee 235 usually reaches its gross weight with around 100-110 gallons of water (8.3 pounds per gallon) and proportionately less with many ag chemicals that can weigh 9 to over 11 gallons per gallon. Most ag pilots who fly or flew Pawnees don’t advise flying with any more than 90-100 gallons. Mine has an updated 260 Hp engine, and while it has ample power to come out of a field and maintain speed in a turn, it’s still short of wing area. With more than 100 gallons (or 830 pounds) in the hopper, the stall speed starts to get uncomfortably close to the accelerated stall speed in a 45 degree turn. My Pawnee with myself and 41 gallons of fuel reaches its gross weight with 107 gallons of water. That last 50 gallons of hopper capacity is only useful for seeding and other operations with lower density dry materials. In short, the weight change was at most on the order of 800 pounds rather than 1200 pounds.
2) A Pawnee with a load and spray equipment will do a maximum of about 105-110 mph at 75% power and even at full power would be unlikely to exceed its Va of 120 mph. My Pawnee 235 has an updated engine producing 260 hp but with its fixed pitched propeller my Pawnees still won’t exceed Va with a full load and spray equipment. Based on both its plying traits and what I see in the video, I don’t see any indication of excessive airspeed in this video.
3) Most ag planes do pitch up during an emergency dump. Ag pilots, like fire pilots flying ag aircraft as single engine air tankers, use forward stick to offset this pitch up tendency and can do it with no pitch up being evident. Students attending ag schools do emergency dumps as part of their part 137 training and very few anticipate the pitch up quickly enough and/or with enough forward stick in Pawnees and in aircraft that pitch up more than a Pawnee but the wings don’t fall off.
4) The Pawnee’s pitch up tendency is comparatively mild, even when dumping a full load. When dumping a full 100-110 gallon load an uncorrected pitch up is still only on the order of 1.5-2.0 G.
5) More to the point, if you don’t mitigate the pitch up with forward stick it looks just like the Pawnee in the video prior to the pitch up. The initial pitch up before the wing separation isn’t out of the ordinary. Even if the pilot added back pressure to make it more spectacular, it’s not a pull anywhere near the damage and failure limits on the VG diagram, even 800 pounds below gross weight. You did discuss the 1995 AD that required periodic and extensive (wing removal and dye penetrant testing) every 24 months, or new wing attach fittings and repetitive replacement every 60 months. Later there were three STCs for new wing attach fittings, two of which retired the AD. Most Pawnees still out there have been modified with the new STC’d attach fittings at some point since 1995 when they have been rebuilt and recovered. The problem is unless you know what you are looking for and look to ensure the new STC’d attach fittings were actually installed, you have no idea if the AD was complied with or just pencil whipped. Similarly there is no way to know whether a 24 month or 60 month inspection was actually done if the aircraft has the original fittings. It’s not a common issue in the US, but Bic maintenance is a bigger potential issue south of the border, where these wing separations happen.
 
So, it was a girl?
 
Is this one done better...

 
Back
Top