Bonanza crash caught on video

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 08:39:53 -0600, Newps wrote:



Roger (K8RI) wrote:




A lot sooner, 33% in fact. A Bonanza with a 520 at 2800 pounds,


Not according to the manual.

Your manual doesn't say anything about flaps for any takeoff. Nor does

Good Lord! I just quoted the "short field take off procedure" from
the American Bonanza Society "Pilot Proficiency Training Manual" and
you say my manual doesn't say anything about flaps for any take off
and I even listed the name of the manual. The Short field TO is on
page 36. Having to repeat myself, it says "Do not use flaps unless
stated to do so in the POH for the specific aircraft".


it say anything about any surface othr than a hard surface runway.

It certainly does.
On page 33 it lists the average take off distances for
concrete/asphalt, hard turf, avg field with short grass, avg field
with long grass, soft ground and very soft ground.

Other publications do. I'm sure you're familiar with Eckalbar's book.
The answers and more math than you can handle will spell it all out in

Although it's been a while (17 years) one of my minors was in math so
I think I could probably handle it.

there. Even with out going to the book it doesn't take a rocket
scientist to tell a takeoff with flaps is much shorter.

In most cases I'd agree, but, why or why does the American Bonanza
Society Pilot Proficiency Training Manual (put together by the Air
Safety Foundation), say do not use flaps unless it says to do so in
the POH for the specific aircraft. My POH does not say to use flaps so
I follow the ABS training manual and do not use them.

This is what they teach in the "Bonanza Specific" pilot proficiency
program and I'm quite willing to take their experienced word for these
specific aircraft.

BTW when you go through the manual they have you using *full* flaps on
all landings too.

If you still have a problem with this I suggest you call the American
Bonanza Society http://www.bonanza.org/ at:

The American Bonanza Society
P.O. Box 12888
Wichita, Kansas 67277
Telephone: 316/945-1700

And argue with them.

Roger (K8RI)

wrxpilot wrote:

Agreed... This "30 secs" rule is pretty impractical. I like to use
Sparky Imeson's rule of 71% rotation speed by 50% of the runway.
Having done a lot of my flying out of Colorado during the summer
months, it was a comforting rule of thumb.

interesting. That implies that your horizontal G somewhat increases with
speed during the second half. Based on a flat horizontal G throughout the
takeoff run, whatever speed you have 71% of at halfway point, you would just
about reach when you run out of runway.

(71% is roughly sqare root of 2)

regards,
Friedrich

The NTSB preliminary is out:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...10X01354&key=1

On Aug 31, 6:44 pm, Jay Honeck wrote:
http://fox40.trb.com/

In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was atCameronPark
airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
to the web site and click on "CameronParkPlane Crash" on the right
side.

It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

M wrote:
The NTSB preliminary is out:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...10X01354&key=1

So, given the 271 lbs of baggage and at least 360 lbs of fuel, what does
this leave for the 4 passengers weight-wise?

Wow, 107 degrees. That certainly didn't help.

Matt

The fire department can opine all they want; there is no way in hell that
the temperature was 107 except on a black piece of metal aimed directly at
the sun.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"M" wrote in message
oups.com...

The NTSB preliminary is out:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...10X01354&key=1

On Aug 31, 6:44 pm, Jay Honeck wrote:
http://fox40.trb.com/

In an amazing coincidence, a Sacramento TV station was atCameronPark
airport filming background for a story about the crash of a plane that
had departed earlier in the day and caught a second crash on video. Go
to the web site and click on "CameronParkPlane Crash" on the right
side.

It sure looks like the pilot was taking off from a high-density
altitude airport with no flaps, downwind.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
M wrote:
The NTSB preliminary is out:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...10X01354&key=1

So, given the 271 lbs of baggage and at least 360 lbs of fuel, what does
this leave for the 4 passengers weight-wise?

Wow, 107 degrees. That certainly didn't help.

Not knowing the exact figures of that particular airplane, it is hard to
tell, but I found a figure of 1063 pounds useful load at
http://www.raytheonaircraft.com/beechcraft/aircraft/pistons/bonanzag36/specifications.aspx

1063-360-271 leaves 432 pounds for 4 people. 4 people at 170 pounds should
weigh 680 pounds. 432-680= -248 pounds overweight. 3650+248=3898.
3898/3650=1.0679 of the recommended maximum takeoff weight.

Is that a substantial amount overweight? It would seem like it, to me.
Especially at a temperature of 107 degrees.

How about you?
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
M wrote:
The NTSB preliminary is out:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...10X01354&key=1
So, given the 271 lbs of baggage and at least 360 lbs of fuel, what does
this leave for the 4 passengers weight-wise?

Wow, 107 degrees. That certainly didn't help.

Not knowing the exact figures of that particular airplane, it is hard to
tell, but I found a figure of 1063 pounds useful load at
http://www.raytheonaircraft.com/beechcraft/aircraft/pistons/bonanzag36/specifications.aspx

1063-360-271 leaves 432 pounds for 4 people. 4 people at 170 pounds should
weigh 680 pounds. 432-680= -248 pounds overweight. 3650+248=3898.
3898/3650=1.0679 of the recommended maximum takeoff weight.

Is that a substantial amount overweight? It would seem like it, to me.
Especially at a temperature of 107 degrees.

How about you?

Yes, 248 lbs over would be substantial, however, if two of the
passengers were women, there is a chance that the average weight was
less than 170. However, nowadays in America, the odds of being much
less than 170 are slim. And I'm nearly certain they didn't average less
than 432/4! Then again, we need to know for sure what the useful load
was for that particular aircraft.

Matt

RST Engineering wrote:
The fire department can opine all they want; there is no way in hell that
the temperature was 107 except on a black piece of metal aimed directly at
the sun.

Even above a paved runway? The temps at an airport, especially large
ones (I realize this isn't a large one) are often well above ambient
elsewhere. Concrete and asphalt are great sun collectors.

Matt

Those useful load figures are for the new G36, they're as much
overweight as your new Cessna 206's. 2700 pound empty weight? That's
pathetic. The A36's had a typical empty weight of 1980-2050 so the
useful came in at around 1550. So looks like he was under gross, even
if the Bo was heavier than normal.




Morgans wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

M wrote:

The NTSB preliminary is out:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...10X01354&key=1

So, given the 271 lbs of baggage and at least 360 lbs of fuel, what does
this leave for the 4 passengers weight-wise?

Wow, 107 degrees. That certainly didn't help.


Not knowing the exact figures of that particular airplane, it is hard to
tell, but I found a figure of 1063 pounds useful load at
http://www.raytheonaircraft.com/beechcraft/aircraft/pistons/bonanzag36/specifications.aspx

1063-360-271 leaves 432 pounds for 4 people. 4 people at 170 pounds should
weigh 680 pounds. 432-680= -248 pounds overweight. 3650+248=3898.
3898/3650=1.0679 of the recommended maximum takeoff weight.

Is that a substantial amount overweight? It would seem like it, to me.
Especially at a temperature of 107 degrees.

How about you?

Not knowing the exact figures of that particular airplane, it is hard to
tell, but I found a figure of 1063 pounds useful load at
http://www.raytheonaircraft.com/beechcraft/aircraft/pistons/bonanzag3...

1063-360-271 leaves 432 pounds for 4 people. 4 people at 170 pounds should
weigh 680 pounds. 432-680= -248 pounds overweight. 3650+248=3898.
3898/3650=1.0679 of the recommended maximum takeoff weight.

Is that a substantial amount overweight? It would seem like it, to me.
Especially at a temperature of 107 degrees.

How about you?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I ran the numbers through this calculator and it doesn't look like he
was over-gross:
http://www.csgnetwork.com/a36bonanzawbcalc.html

The density altitude was 4592 feet, which would have had some impact
on climb performance, but he still should have been able to climb at a
decent rate. I wonder if the prop control was set correctly for take-
off?