Bonanza crash caught on video

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 05:42:52 -0700, Jay Honeck
wrote:

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

That's interesting -- I never realized that Bo pilots didn't need to
use flaps for departure.

I presume there is something about the wing that makes them
unnecessary?

"I think" meaning I don't know for sure, that flaps slow the
acceleration enough that nothing is gained in distance by using them.
That and with gear and flaps it has some very abrupt and demanding
stall characteristics.

Although the Bo is a "relatively" large single, it has roughly the
same wing loading as a Cherokee, or about 17# per sq ft (give or take
a tad). It's big, but it has a big wing with lots of lift and is a
very good short field plane for both landing and take off. The Debs
and earlier F33s had a shorter landing distance than some 172s. With
the larger engines they can also get out of a fairly short field.

One interesting characteristic of a soft field take off is if the up
elevator pressure is not eased off as the nose gear comes off the
plane will rotate into ground effect early and then settle back down
to never lift off again unless back pressure is eased off considerably
to allow the place to accelerate.

On asphalt you can get the plane into ground effect in a very short
distance. Then it becomes a balancing act to accelerate just inches
off the pavement while not touching back down. I'd be a bit hesitant
to try this technique on a real soft or rough field unless it were the
only way out.

I once had the privilege to experience a departure in ground effect
along with a tail wind in the Deb from Goodland KS. The ends of the
one runway are well above the center portion with rising terrain off
the end so you need to accelerate before the half way point. Just as
we reached the low point, the wind switched abruptly by 90 degrees
from a quartering head wind to a quartering tail wind. Too fast to
stop and to slow to fly. I hauled it off in ground effect and hoped
for the best. Fortunately there were no trees off the end of the
runway, but there were a number of large rocks/boulders. We were in
ground effect until cresting the hill. That was one tense departure.

Roger

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 11:25:47 -0700, Jay Honeck
wrote:

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.

Yep, horsepower makes all the difference. In our 150 hp Piper
Warrior, adding flaps for takeoff was something we did cuz we were
told to do so -- but they didn't really make much difference. That
plane just daintily floated off the ground (and back ON the ground,
when landing) no matter what the flap setting.

Our 235 hp Piper Pathfinder is WAY different. With 2 notches of
flaps, on a cool day, you can just hang on the prop and see nothing
but sky. It'll leap off the ground much faster with than without
flaps.

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.

Not all Bonanzas. The older ones I'm familiare with don't, but I
believe the newer A36 calls for 15 degrees which airn't much.

Roger

karl gruber wrote:



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,


Approach flaps cuts 20% off the takeoff distance.

Roger (K8RI) wrote:



"I think" meaning I don't know for sure, that flaps slow the
acceleration enough that nothing is gained in distance by using them.

It reduces ground roll by 20%.




One interesting characteristic of a soft field take off is if the up
elevator pressure is not eased off as the nose gear comes off the
plane will rotate into ground effect early and then settle back down
to never lift off again unless back pressure is eased off considerably
to allow the place to accelerate.


Uh, what? That has not been my experience. I have done numerous touch
and go's of this sort where I let it settle back on the runway as I was
accelerating on takeoff due to poor technique on my part. No doubt I
slightly increased my takeoff distance but just leaving the controls
where they are the plane will takeoff just fine.

"Dudley Henriques" wrote

What seems obvious is not always the answer, and it's the wise pilot who
realizes the real safety message will be found along the investigative
path that follows the video rather than by watching the video itself
without this valuable information.

Although I agree in principle as to what you said, I wonder if in this case,
we can all take away some knowledge, and cautions, just from the
speculations to the possible causes.

I don't know if I am explaining myself very clearly. What I'm thinking is
that everyone may take some cautions to not do EACH of the possible causes
that have been offered up, even if only one or a combinations of a few of
the offered explanations are really the cause.

What do we take away with us, as possible causes?

1) Downwind takeoff - bad, when conditions may be close to performance
limitations.

2) Downwind takeoffs even worse when you get above the tree line.

3) Importance of calculating DA, with a conservative slant. Also to add
other performance reducing factors into the performance calculations.

4) Overweight takeoffs are a "bad idea." Weight and CG should be closely
considered, especially when it is close to maximum.

5) Lean if necessary for an elevated DA.

6) Possible (big emphasis on this, since we don't really have a reliable
indication if the engine was running poorly) rough running engines will hurt
takeoff and climb, especially when takeoff performance calculations are
marginal.

7) Raising the nose further while on the brink of a stall is all it takes
to insure a stall will occur.

It seems likely to me, that one, or more likely more or all of the above had
a part in the crash. Possible, even probable there are others that nobody
has mentioned, or thought of.

Still, it makes me think about all of the above while preparing for the next
takeoff. Would you, and others, think about it in that way?

To me, not knowing what the cause was would remind me to consider all of the
possible causes, rather than just the one or ones that are really
responsible.

How about you? Do you have any other pet theories, or think one of the
reasons I have written down may be largely responsible?
--
Jim in NC

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 13:06:04 -0700, Airbus wrote:

I'm voting for overweight.
After what appears to be a relativly long roll, you can see the plane mushing
and stalling trying to climb.

I saw the video on a computer without sound, so I don't know if they said how
many people were on board, but this plane, even with no flaps, should climb out
just fine.



What about watching this type of video - is it useful for our awareness as
pilots? I tend to think it is, but that's just a personal opinion. Where I grew
up, the State Police used to do an auto safety presentation every year to
students who were about to get their driving licenses. They would show gory,
shocking films of accident scenes, hoping to impress the young, future drivers.
They don't do that any more, but I don't know if this is because they feel it
was not effective, or because they are concerned it is no longer socially

I was told by the a State Police officer that although in the short
term those presentations had a positive effect, the long term effect
was negative. People and particularly the young have a tendency to
push the envelope. It works out to , "I've been doing that for a long
time and nothing happened to me, or I know some one who does that all
the time". We had the same kind of problems in industry safety.

"Newps" wrote

For the takeoff in the video no flaps was correct.

Could it be considered helpful to get off the ground quicker, so you could
suck up the gear and accelerate while still in ground effect?

Of course, if you had to call it that close, the decision to take off with
all of the weight would be the wrong decision, anyway, so it goes back to no
flaps being correct.

I have heard of some people doing the takeoff run with no flaps, and
slightly before rotation, pop the first notch of flaps down, then milk them
up once speed and climb is obtained.

Seems like it would work, but it also seems pretty marginal to be calling it
that close.

Well, the heat seems like it may finally be slacking off around here in the
coming week. It has been over 90 every day in August, with many, (check
that) most days over 96, and several days over 100, and several record daily
highs, and even a couple ALL TIME, ANY DAY record highs. It may finally be
time to go up with my friend and get some flying in. I can't begin to say
how much I am looking forward to it, but as he has said, "it's just too damn
hot to have any fun in an airplane, at these temperatures!"
--
Jim in NC

"Robert M. Gary" wrote

You guys on this board are as bad as the people
on the news with wild &*($ guesses that are useless.

Perhaps, but the motivation is much different, and much more justified.
They are trying to understand, and the news people are trying to..... to...

What is it that they are trying to do, again? g
--
Jim in NC

On Sep 1, 9:30 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"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.

So you count to 30 while you take off, at the right speed? Watch the second
hand?

I think there has to be one of the other rules to follow that are a bit more
concrete and easy to recognize. Anything would be better than that!

Or was that an attempt at humor? If so, I couldn't tell.
--
Jim in NC

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.

"karl gruber" wrote

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.

That's WAY more toys than most of us have, and WAY, WAY more airplane than
most of us have! g

Sounds reasonable, though.
--
Jim in NC