Plane VS house in NM

Sounds like engine failure on take-off, with a/c above max single engine altitude (DA, that is)

Juan was quick on this one:

 
Based on aviationdb.com this was an T310R model with turbo-charged engines and - according to this source https://www.aopa.org/go-fly/aircraft-and-ownership/aircraft-fact-sheets/cessna-310 - a single engine service ceiling of 17,200 ft.

So the single engine service ceiling was in theory not a relevant factor. Looks like this bird did not climb well from the very beginning. The power / thrust problem occured either during the take-off run or very soon after. Provided the reporting is correct that the left engine caused the trouble, the initiated left turn back to the airport while slow and low was poor judgement.
 
aggiepack said:
Based on aviationdb.com this was an T310R model with turbo-charged engines and - according to this source https://www.aopa.org/go-fly/aircraft-and-ownership/aircraft-fact-sheets/cessna-310 - a single engine service ceiling of 17,200 ft.

So the single engine service ceiling was in theory not a relevant factor. Looks like this bird did not climb well from the very beginning. The power / thrust problem occured either during the take-off run or very soon after. Provided the reporting is correct that the left engine caused the trouble, the initiated left turn back to the airport while slow and low was poor judgement.
Click to expand...
Thanks for looking that up. Juan should have caught that one....just goes to show that we're all fallible.
 
Turbo-Arrow-Driver said:
Juan should have caught that one
Click to expand...

I sure caught it as I watched the video. 7400 ft single engine service ceiling....:nonod:

I also noticed at approximately 6:06 Juan announced the single engine service ceiling as 7700 feet.

As aggiepack brought up, this plane was well under it's single engine service ceiling.
 
Zeldman said:
I sure caught it as I watched the video. 7400 ft single engine service ceiling....:nonod:

I also noticed at approximately 6:06 Juan announced the single engine service ceiling as 7700 feet.

As aggiepack brought up, this plane was well under it's single engine service ceiling.
Click to expand...
Okay, now I'm just confused. I rechecked the info for the 310R engines and they are TCM Continental IO-520-MB. The IO prefix indicates normally aspirated. A turbocharged engine would have a GTSIO or TSIO prefix.

Can someone clear this up...are the 310R engines turbocharged or not?
 
Who is Juan? I'm drawing a Blanc on that one.
 
4RNB said:
Who is Juan? I'm drawing a Blanc on that one.
Click to expand...
Juan Browne -- he's a 777 pilot who has a utoob channel named "Blancolirio" and does reviews of aviation accidents, among other things. He's usually pretty good, but missed the fact that the accident a/c here was turbocharged.
 
Sierra_Hotel said:
Notice the Blanc in his post ;)
Click to expand...
I watched a couple of these things online but found them way too wordy (maybe for get paid algos), found them to be aholes, and heard a speech where some official talked about the "internet response teams" that show up after disasters.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Wreckage was still smoking when Juan released his video. Dude’s just like any other journalist. In such a hurry to get content out, he’s going to get things wrong.
Click to expand...
NTSB takes longer than congress to get things wrong all the time. What's their excuse? :D
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
Registration isn't always accurate. Mine comes up as a turbo and it isn't. Not saying it's inaccurate in this case. I just don't trust the registration info.
Click to expand...

Oh I know, just not much else to go off of until something official is released or someone with first-hand knowledge responds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top