Bonanza crash caught on video

OK, you've posted this same thing twice ... and I never said that Vx was
with flaps extended. So, what is your point?

Matt

Oh.....Reread my post. Evidently your inability to comprehend is affecting
your pee brain.

Which is why I'm surprised to hear of a high-horsepower plane like the
Bonanza that DOESN'T use flaps for takeoff. When I saw the video, I
thought for sure that was the reason for the crash.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I'd be surprised if Beech even published a short field takeoff technique for
the Bonanza. I know for sure they don't for the King Air, even though at one
time they did. It called for takeoff with approach flaps.

I remember getting a revision to the BE90 POH that removed the short field
takeoff technique. I believe it has to do with liability. Does anyone have a
Bonanza POH that is actually up to date with all the revisions? I'm pretty
sure the Bonanza would get in the air in less distance with approach flaps,
but is probably no longer on the POH, just like the KA.

Karl

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Jay Honeck" wrote

Our friend has an airplane powered by an unmuffled Chevy V-8, and it
sounds just as sputtery at idle...

Most high HP V-8's do sound sputtery, due to a high lift cam with more
than
usual valve open overlap.

Even then, V-8's with a stock cam often sound rough at idle, even with a
muffler, if idle is set relatively low. How about Harley's? They all
sound
rough, with or without mufflers.
--
Jim in NC


Most of the uneven sound of V-8's was a function of the old 90 degree
crankshafts, which always made any dual exhause system sound rough. Some of
the newer designs, at least from GM and Ford, have single-plane crankshafts
and a resulting smooth exhaust sound; although the real reason was exhaust
and intake tuning for a better combination of power and economy. There is
really no excuse for not having fixed the firing order problem at least 40
years earlier--after all, we had plenty of in-line four cylinder engines
with dynamically balanced single plane crankshafts.

OTOH, the "Harley Sound" is supposed to be part of the "Harley Mystique"
:-)

However, your points are well taken, and every LongEZ that I have ever heard
was a perfect example of an engine that ran just fine and sounded crappy.
It is almost as though the engines are annoyed about being installed
backward, so they sputter about the indignity of it all. :-)

Peter

"john smith" wrote in message
...
30-second Rule.
If you are not airborne in 30-seconds, abort, something is wrong.
Sort it our on the ramp.

On the Falcon 50EX there is a "G" meter. If the airplane won't make the
proper horizontal "G" on takeoff it means abort. The nice thing about this
is that max "G" is right at the start of the TO roll.

Karl

act.
I have the feeling that had the sound track been recorded from a closer
vantage point further down the runway closer to the rotation point more
useful data would be available to a knowledgeable eye witness.



--
Dudley Henriques

All sorts of things could have affected the TO as well. Parking brake? Were
BOTH mags on? Was the airplane in trim? Did he have the mixture way out for
taxi and forget to push it up some? Etc.

Karl

Roger (K8RI) wrote:


Many if not most Bonanzas don't use flaps even for short field and
this didn't look short.


The standard Bonanza takeoff is no flaps however using flaps does reduce
ground roll. For an F33 at 2800 pounds on a 32 degree day at 5000 feet
as an example using flaps shortens the takeoff roll. However the no
flap takeoff only needs an extra 70 feet to get off the ground. By
3400 horizontal feet the no flap takeoff has crossed the altitude of the
flap takeoff and is significantly outclimbing it. So the question you
ask yourself is are you trying to get over an obstacle close to the
takeoff point of farther away? If the obstacle is close use flaps, if
not then don't. For the takeoff in the video no flaps was correct.





As some one from there mentioned it's 4000
feet at 1200 MSL. There is no take off maneuver even short field at
high altitude in mine that calls for any use of the flaps.


My S35 does call for flaps to clear an obstacle.




As to gas, the capacity varies over a wide range. With a newer plane
it varies from 75 to 100 or so depending on the tanks installed and
the size of the Aux tanks.. I can put 600# of fuel in mine and with
1000# useful load it's at best a 3 passenger plane if they are skinny
and no baggage. The F33s reached 1400# useful load so depending on
lots of variables It may or may not be a 4 passenger plane.

They reported it to be a 4 seat, but it sure looked like an A36. Try
as I might I could not come up with a valid N number to check. Nor
could I find anything listed for a Walter Norwood.



It's a mid 70's A36 which would have 80 gallons onboard assuming no tip
tanks.

Matt Whiting wrote:


I don't know about the Bo in particular, but on some airplanes the flaps
contribute more to drag than to lift. The 182 flaps generate tremendous
additional lift up to 20 degrees or so and then begin to add drag at a
high rate.


While still adding lift. You can see this in your POH because the stall
speed is lowest at 40 degrees of flaps.



I've never flown a Bo so I don't know what is flaps characteristics are,
but if the flaps mainly add drag and don't lower the stall speed
appreciable, then using them for takeoff would make little sense. The
Arrow performed only marginally better when using flaps for takeoff. The
Skylane was a whole different airplane with flaps 20 on takeoff. The
deck angle was amazing and the climb speed substantially reduced.



Cessna flaps are very effective at both adding lift and drag. My 182
had 40 degrees of flaps and it really helped to wedge it in short. My
Bo has 30 degrees of flaps and that combined with a much slipperier wing
allows the 182 to stop in 100 less feet than my Bo with the same load,
not at the same weight.(Myself and 40 gallons). At the same weight the
Bo needs slightly less runway than the 182. Stall speed for my S35 is
63 knots at gross(3300 pounds), flaps up. Flaps down it is 51 knots at
gross. At 2400 pounds it is 55/46 knots. It depends on what you're
trying to accomplish on the takeoff that decides for you if flaps should
be used or not. Just getting off the ground in the minimum distance is
not necessarily the best strategy. A no flap takeoff in any plane will
at some point cross thru the altitude of the climbing aircraft using
flaps, usually between 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile from the start of the
takeoff roll. So while the guy using flaps wows the crowd on takeoff
the guy that takes off without flaps is much farther above the trees one
mile from the takeoff point.

RST Engineering wrote:


From the shadows, it appears that the accident occurred between noon and 2
pm.


Yep, noon.



In Grass Valley, it was 94 dF at that time, and Cameron Park is about 1700
feet lower. Presuming a standard lapse rate of 3.5 dF per thousand feet,
the temperature at Cameron was about 100 dF.


yep, 98F.



Altimeter setting at that time in Grass Valley was 30.06 and I doubt that it
changed much between here and 25 miles south. That would make the density
altitude somewhere in the vicinity of 4100 feet.

yep.



Cameron Park winds were most likely light; we had been reporting winds on
Thursday most of the morning and early afternoon at no more than 5 to 8
knots. From the hair ruffling of the one "sputtering" witness I'd say that
was about right.


Yep, reported to be about 5 knots by a witness.



The aircraft appeared to be an A36. The performance charts for a density
altitude of 4100 feet showed that the aircraft should have required about
2100 feet of runway roll with a 5 knot tailwind and a climb thereafter of
1000 fpm.



One of the guys on the Beech list I frequent did the math for his V35.
At gross, 40C, 10 knot tailwind he needs 3200 feet to clear a 50 foot
obstacle. This guy was looking at rising terrain so his sight picture
was a little off. Since his A36 with the 550 has an altitude
compensating fuel pump his mixture shouldn't have been a problem.
There's some speculation his prop control wasn't in all the way.

karl gruber wrote:

"Matt Whiting" Yes, flaps need power and the 150 just doesn't have it.
The 172 is a

little better, but the 182 really begins to show what flaps combined with
power can do for takeoff.

Matt

A 182 will get in the air shorter with flaps, but Vx is still a clean wing
speed.


If you're manufacturer only gives you a clean wing Vx and Vy. I have
speeds for both flaps up/clean and flaps 20/dirty

"Matt Whiting" wrote

And wind slows as it nears the ground, so a 5 knot tailwind on the runway,
could well be increasing significantly with altitude.

Very true. I didn't quite put it all together (if it can be "all together"
until the full report is out) until you mentioned that.

If he did have decent take-off speed when he first lifted off, but was only
a few miles per hour above stall, when he climbed above the tree line and
had the full tail wind hit, that would have instantly reduced his speed to
below or at stall speed. With that in mind, if nose was raised at all (to
clear terrain), the increased deck angle would have reduced his speed to
well below stall, and the big bobbles began.

A real shame, all the way around, but it is a very unique opportunity for
others to learn some things that they may have forgotten, or never quite
learned at all. It isn't often you see the full anatomy of a plane crash,
like this one.
--
Jim in NC