Tamahawk down in a corn field

SixPapaCharlie

SixPapaCharlie

May the force be with you
Joined
Aug 8, 2013
Messages
17,546
Display Name
First Officer 6PC
SixPapaCharlie said:
Always curious about the ones that have located an off field location to set it down but then "nosedive it in" (Witness report and all but the plane does appear to be tore up)

I would imagine that corn would absorb a lot of the energy if you settled into it. Either way, I am glad it looks like he is going to survive.

http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fire/2015/07/25/Plane-crashes-near-Lake-High-School-ohio.html
Click to expand...

You don't settle into it; it grabs you and sucks you in like something from a movie.:rofl: Once it catches your gear, you're done.
 
8402903_G.jpg
 
Henning said:
Once it catches your gear, you're done.
Click to expand...

Corn typically won't grab your gear...soybeans likely will though and put you on your back. Given the choice, I'll take a corn field over a soybean field everyday.

Corn will beat the living sh*t out of the airplane, but once the engine quits it belongs the the insurance company anyway.

No outcome is certain...but I'll take corn odds over soybean odds.
 
If you keep flying the plane, you'll walk away from any of them if you have a shoulder strap. It's violent, but it's within tolerable Gs, and the crop is soft. Even the shorter grains like wheat and oats have enough cushion to them. Just keep the wings level, tail down, and a straight line, the best you can, as long as you can.

Small planes are made to absorb a lot of energy quite well within a fairly narrow aspect window, key is to present that aspect into the crash.

What I hate is beans and grape vines, instant stop, no cushion.
 
That corn looks like a lot of it I've seen around central Ohio: short from all the rain and standing water. Notice the yellowish tinge as opposed to the dark green on the higher ground behind the carcass.

Hard to tell but he appeared to land with the rows. I assume that would be the preferred method. Here's to a speedy recovery.
 
iflyvfr said:
That corn looks like a lot of it I've seen around central Ohio: short from all the rain and standing water. Notice the yellowish tinge as opposed to the dark green on the higher ground behind the carcass.

Hard to tell but he appeared to land with the rows. I assume that would be the preferred method. Here's to a speedy recovery.
Click to expand...

That is debated, and is dependent on height. Tall corn I think you're better off across them because they provide a solid blanket as they fold over each other. For the most part it didn't much matter to us flying Ag, you fly the field for the cross wind, not the crop rows, and it's not like you're going to be turning in the next few feet.:lol:
 
Henning said:
That is debated, and is dependent on height. Tall corn I think you're better off across them because they provide a solid blanket as they fold over each other.
Click to expand...

Corn is planted close enough together that you and your plane likely won't notice the difference whether landing with the rows or across them.

What does matter though...

If the ground isn't perfectly flat (which is hard to tell from the air) your landing path is likely to be more level landing with the rows than across them if good "contour farming" practices are being utilized because the rows should be running across the slope of the field and not up/down the slope.
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
Corn is planted close enough together that you and your plane likely won't notice the difference landing with the rows or across them.

What does matter though...

If the ground isn't perfectly flat (which is hard to tell from the air) your landing path is likely to be more level landing with the rows than across them if good "contour farming" practices are being utilized because the rows should be running across the slope of the field and not up/down the slope.
Click to expand...

:confused: If I had the choice, I'll take the down slope crash on any field a tractor can drive cross slope.
 
Henning said:
:confused: If I had the choice, I'll take the down slope crash on any field a tractor can drive cross slope.
Click to expand...

And you'd be floating into the trees at the bottom of the field in many areas of Missouri. We plant some pretty steep ground. Tractors can easily plant across far steeper slopes than you can land on downhill. At least safely downhill.

If I'm trying to stuff an airplane into a field with no engine and no second chance...downhill would be my last choice. Not that it's easy to tell which direction is downhill from a few thousand feet anyway.
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
And you'd be floating into the trees at the bottom of the field in many areas of Missouri. We plant some pretty steep ground. Tractors can easily plant across far steeper slopes than you can land on downhill. At least safely downhill.

If I'm trying to stuff an airplane into a field with no engine and no second chance...downhill would be my last choice. Not that it's easy to tell which direction is downhill from a few thousand feet anyway.
Click to expand...

Sure, then the shape of the field is what determines the choice. There's lots of rolling prairie where that's not an issue. As I said before, it was an academic exercise as for the most part, it won't likely be the over riding factor.
 
So if you have a retract, gear up or down when landing in corn or another type of farmed plants?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
I would think all off field landings are less risky w/ gear up right?
 
drotto said:
So if you have a retract, gear up or down when landing in corn or another type of farmed plants?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Depends on the density of the crop. Short crop, definitely gear down since it absorbs a lot of energy, corn I would put it down as well. If it's a thick stand of soybeans, wheat, oats... then I'd likely stay gear up since they'll never touch the dirt.
 
That's one beat up tomahawk,that's not going to buff out. Another parts plane to the scrap heap.
 
drotto said:
So if you have a retract, gear up or down when landing in corn or another type of farmed plants?
Click to expand...

Well, the real experts say:

The best aircraft configuration for a forced landing is a hotly debated topic, especially when it comes to landing gear position. In rough, hard terrain, putting the gear down to absorb impact energy may be advantageous. This advantage is lost if the aircraft flips, since the best seat restraints can't adequately protect people from the omnidirectional forces resulting from a tumbling cockpit. Most experts agree that the gear should be up for landing on soft surfaces, on snow, and in the water.

There is no argument regarding the electrical and fuel systems — secure them to reduce the potential for a post-crash fire. And bank angles should be nonexistent to shallow to avoid catching a wingtip and cartwheeling the aircraft.
Click to expand...
 
That's not particularly accurate. The restraints are quite adequate for nose over flipping as long as you have a standard shoulder strap, double stap is way better though. Plenty of planes have ended up on their backs and the occupants walked away. Pretty much any time you go in in an Ag plane, or similar conventional gear plane, you'll end up on your back. The trick is to avoid real tumbling about multiple axis. "Wings level, tail down, yaw stable", maintain that until the control surfaces no longer allow it. By that time you will be slow enough that your remaining kinetic energy probably won't kill you in the rest of the stop as long as nothing like a tree penetrates the cabin space.
 
timwinters said:
Corn typically won't grab your gear...soybeans likely will though and put you on your back. Given the choice, I'll take a corn field over a soybean field everyday.
Click to expand...

That's what the FSDO in Iowa told instructors. Landing in soybeans tends to result in a nose flip. Corn is better.

Those who don't live in the midwest might not know, so I'll explain that farmers alternate a field between corn and soybeans each year, so that half the fields are usually corn and half are beans, and you likely will have a choice of landing in one vs the other, in an off-field landing.

With a chute, on the other hand, I no longer worry about it.
 
timwinters said:
, but once the engine quits it belongs the the insurance company anyway.
Click to expand...

I hate that saying. I've never seen a off field landing with zero damage to the airframe where the occupants were hurt :yes:

Had two engine failures, haven't so much as scratched a wheel pant.
 
James331 said:
I hate that saying. I've never seen a off field landing with zero damage to the airframe where the occupants were hurt :yes:

Had two engine failures, haven't so much as scratched a wheel pant.
Click to expand...

Yep, I don't want to damage anything; but that may not be an option, so then it becomes, "how to best sacrifice the airframe".
 
James331 said:
I hate that saying. I've never seen a off field landing with zero damage to the airframe where the occupants were hurt :yes:

Had two engine failures, haven't so much as scratched a wheel pant.
Click to expand...

Hate the saying if you want but when I have an engine failure my first concern is my ass and not the airplane. I've had a couplete engine failure...enroute at 6,500', dead stocked to a strip 5 miles behind me and landed on pavement. I didn't scratch anything either. Other than that strip, it was nothing but southern pines for as far as the eye could see. I was prepared to put it into the tops at minimum speed with the stall horn blaring had I needed to. The airplane wasn't my first concern.
 
Henning said:
That's not particularly accurate.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, the air safety institute doesn't have any expertise on the topic whatsoever...certainly not as much as Henning.:rolleyes2:

We all know that all private pilots have full 5 point harnesses in their spamcans after all.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Yep, I don't want to damage anything; but that may not be an option, so then it becomes, "how to best sacrifice the airframe".
Click to expand...

My thoughts are the same. Flying single engine, once that engine quits, I will use the airplane to get people on the ground safely. If destroying the airplane makes it safer for people, such as no other option but to use a very short meadow with trees at the end, than I will have no second thoughts about putting the nose between the trees to stop the plane. It would be nice if we could always fly near suitable open flat fields with short grass, but sometimes that doesn't happen.

In single engine I have had two major power losses, not total failure, both in Alaska. Both were close enough to a landing strip that all I had to do was make an almost normal pattern and land. No damage, no injuries, but one made me late for lunch.
 
timwinters said:
Yeah, I know, the air safety institute doesn't have any expertise on the topic whatsoever...certainly not as much as Henning.:rolleyes2:

We all know that all private pilots have full 5 point harnesses in their spamcans after all.
Click to expand...

There's been a whole lot of us that ended up on our backs and walked away.:dunno:
 
timwinters said:
Hate the saying if you want but when I have an engine failure my first concern is my ass and not the airplane. I've had a couplete engine failure...enroute at 6,500', dead stocked to a strip 5 miles behind me and landed on pavement. I didn't scratch anything either. Other than that strip, it was nothing but southern pines for as far as the eye could see. I was prepared to put it into the tops at minimum speed with the stall horn blaring had I needed to. The airplane wasn't my first concern.
Click to expand...

However the less damage you do to the plane, the less damage you're going to have on your person
 
regardless of the crop...land parallel with the plowed rows... or you are creamed even if there is no crop....
 
Would the corn be more of a cushion when its as high as an elephants eye?
 
Anymore info on this? Might want to show it to a friend of mine who has become interested in aviation since I got my airplane.... he identified the Tomahawk as the plane he wanted because it was more affordable.

I was somewhat trying to talk him out of it due to what I've read about the stall/spin characteristics.... but I do see cheap ones out there and they're relatively easy on fuel I guess.
 
Henning said:
Plenty of planes have ended up on their backs and the occupants walked away.
Click to expand...

I had more injuries from wrecking a Formula Ford racecar than from flipping the Carlson over :D
 
cowman said:
Anymore info on this?
Click to expand...

Later-model Tomahawk spins and recovers just fine, there's no problem. Look here for the testing video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzFgqtPVCZ0

What put me off Tomahawk is that it's slower than 152 and carries less, which is a remarkable accomplishment given that 152 is way overweight for what it is. But I would not say no to a friendly deal on a Tommy with a known history and low hours, versus some of the junk Cessnas that I had to consider just because I'm cheap. Once you're below $22k it's all horrible no matter the make.

People are unreasonably afraid of hitting the time limit on the airframe. But putting 100 hours on it per year, I'm more likely to die of old age than of the wing folding, as long as the spar isn't corroded.
 
timwinters said:
Yeah, I know, the air safety institute doesn't have any expertise on the topic whatsoever...certainly not as much as Henning.:rolleyes2:

We all know that all private pilots have full 5 point harnesses in their spamcans after all.
Click to expand...

Yes! Henning right again.....but he's wrong. Anytime you go upside down your asking for trouble! Regardless of restraint type. Landing across the rows in short corn is not wise as the rows are quite deep compared to tire size. The corn he landed in was newer planting compared to the corn in the rear of photo. When I landed the Stearman in a corn field , in short corn, it was obvious had I landed across the rows it could easily have nosed over. ( secret.....they stagger the planting time so it all doesn't become ripe at one time.)?
 
Jimmy cooper said:
secret.....they stagger the planting time so it all doesn't become ripe at one time.
Click to expand...


Huh. I'll have to let the Kansas cousins know about this new trick so they're not in the tractor for longer than the sun is up, come harvest time. If they'd just stagger it all, they could harvest for half an hour a day and eat bon-bons and watch Maury all afternoon.

Amazing the stuff you learn from non-farmer pilots on aviation boards about farming.

(The only "staggering" I've ever seen was simply because they didn't have enough human beings and tractors to get it all in the ground at the exact same time. Maybe a week from start to finish. 20 hour days isn't uncommon. A machine breaks, longer. It isn't really intentional and isn't done for the reason you have given.)
 
People stagger sweet corn planting times in their gardens.

Farmers don't stagger field corn planting times in their fields.

I haven't seen a garden yet that's big enough to stuff my plane into! :)
 
timwinters said:
Corn typically won't grab your gear...soybeans likely will though and put you on your back. Given the choice, I'll take a corn field over a soybean field everyday.

Corn will beat the living sh*t out of the airplane, but once the engine quits it belongs the the insurance company anyway.

No outcome is certain...but I'll take corn odds over soybean odds.
Click to expand...

I landed an ultralight in beans, never had an issue other than slowing down fast. :dunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top