Columbia crash...opinions

Looks to me like the flap setting may be "a little" more than usually used for
this type of takeoff, but not enough to be causal or contributing.

Hard to say much about speed from this type of video, but he looks slow.

Could be a problem with the C/S prop. The 182, with the prop at fine pitch
usually has abundant excess horsepower on takeoff. If he set the prop wrong, or
if it malfunctioned it could look like this.

Otherwise, as others have stated here, you'd have to know something about the
density altitude at the time, and the loading of the aircraft, as well as
whether the engine itself failed to develmop power.

GF

In rec.aviation.owning Greg Farris wrote:
: Looks to me like the flap setting may be "a little" more than usually used for
: this type of takeoff, but not enough to be causal or contributing.

: Hard to say much about speed from this type of video, but he looks slow.

: Could be a problem with the C/S prop. The 182, with the prop at fine pitch
: usually has abundant excess horsepower on takeoff. If he set the prop wrong, or
: if it malfunctioned it could look like this.

: Otherwise, as others have stated here, you'd have to know something about the
: density altitude at the time, and the loading of the aircraft, as well as
: whether the engine itself failed to develmop power.

True. It sure looks like a classic mush/stall though. He got airborne
too early, but with plenty of potential ground-effect acceleration space/time.
Between the partial stall with resulting wing drop, and perhaps seeing the people
ducking for cover, he tried to suck it up and over. Without ground effect to
accelerate, he got irrecoverably behind the power curve.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

In article ,
says...

He got airborne too early, but with plenty of potential ground-effect
acceleration space/time. Between the partial stall with resulting wing drop,
and perhaps seeing the people ducking for cover, he tried to suck it up and
over. Without ground effect to accelerate, he got irrecoverably behind the
power curve.

-Cory

Maybe - but I generally consider that there's not *that* much ground effect
to worry about in these high-wing Cessnas. He got pretty high for that.

Sure doesn't look like fun.



In article ,
VE says...

Don't see how he could have done that. Have you *ever* tried to take off with
the throttle(s) / prop(s) / mixture(s) not pushed full forward? Particularly
on a maximum effort takeoff? (Maybe holding back a little bit on a
turbocharged engine with the throttle as redline dictates).


I agree - it sure seems intuitive to push everything to the firewall in such
a case - but then it seems intuitive as well to remove gust locks, yet some
pilots manage . . .

GF

Greg Farris wrote:
Could be a problem with the C/S prop. The 182, with the prop at fine pitch
usually has abundant excess horsepower on takeoff. If he set the prop wrong,
or if it malfunctioned it could look like this.


Don't see how he could have done that. Have you *ever* tried to take off with
the throttle(s) / prop(s) / mixture(s) not pushed full forward? Particularly on
a maximum effort takeoff? (Maybe holding back a little bit on a turbocharged
engine with the throttle as redline dictates).





--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE