Accident report on the midair at Tenino

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 23:21:25 +0200, CV wrote:

Bela P. Havasreti wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 07:58:32 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:
off, you don't lose your nose gear!) At the same time, losing all that
weight might improve your glide significantly.

No, less weight does not significantly improve glide
performance, it just shifts your best glide to a lower
speed range. (It will improve your glide downwind
though, and make it worse into wind)

More important however would be the aerodynamic shape of
whatever was left of the nose after having prop, engine and
part of the cowling fall off. It is not too bold a bet to
say the aerodynamic characteristics will have been clearly
worse after the damage than before, thus more drag and
worse glide.

CV

Please watch who you quote (I didn't write that....).

Bela P. Havasreti

In article , C J Campbell wrote:
I have always been told that it is impossible to pitch down if your engine
comes off. You will pitch up, stall, and die.

This was something we often discussed in our hangar lying sessions at
SPX. There was quite a bit of speculation that if you immediately
prevented the stall by pushing forward, you'd be able to survive the
loss of the engine. I guess this has been proven, at least for the
C170B.

off, you don't lose your nose gear!) At the same time, losing all that
weight might improve your glide significantly.

It would be balanced by the fact the aerodynamically-shaped cowling has
gone, and has been replaced by a decidedly un-aerodynamic flat firewall.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , C J Campbell wrote:
I have always been told that it is impossible to pitch down if your
engine
comes off. You will pitch up, stall, and die.

This was something we often discussed in our hangar lying sessions at
SPX. There was quite a bit of speculation that if you immediately
prevented the stall by pushing forward, you'd be able to survive the
loss of the engine. I guess this has been proven, at least for the
C170B.

off, you don't lose your nose gear!) At the same time, losing all that
weight might improve your glide significantly.

It would be balanced by the fact the aerodynamically-shaped cowling has
gone, and has been replaced by a decidedly un-aerodynamic flat firewall.


The aerodynamic shaped cowling means little in a Cessna. You have that prop
that is still spinning and creating as much drag as disk that size.

The aerodynamic shaped cowling means little in a Cessna. You have that prop
that is still spinning and creating as much drag as disk that size.


Not if the engine is gone too.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

The C-170B must have one helluva lot of elevator authority. I can't belive
that the CG wasn't back in the tail somewhere after losing the whole engine!

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love
America

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Both pilots are well known and respected in the Puget Sound area. Amazing
that the pilot of the 170 was able to fly his plane at all:


NTSB Identification: SEA04FA083B
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, May 16, 2004 in Tenino, WA
Aircraft: Cessna 210J, registration: N3329S
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 1 Minor.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors.
Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been
completed.

On May 16, 2004, approximately 2040 Pacific daylight time, a Cessna 170B,
N3510D, and a Cessna 210J, N3329S, collided in flight approximately five
nautical miles southeast of Tenino, Washington. The Cessna 170B had
departed
Roseburg, Oregon, and was en route to the Wax Orchards Airport, Vashon
Island, Washington. The Cessna 210J had departed Camas, Washington, and
was
en route to Paine Field, Everett, Washington. There was one occupant
onboard
each aircraft. The pilot of the Cessna 210J, a certificated commercial
pilot, sustained fatal injuries while the certificated private pilot of
the
Cessna 170B sustained minor injuries. Visual meteorological conditions
prevailed and both aircraft were operated under 14 CFR Part 91
regulations.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), both pilots
received
weather briefings but neither pilot filed a flight plan, and neither
aircraft had requested or were receiving air route traffic control radar
services at the time of the collision.

The pilot of the Cessna 170B reported that he was level at 3,500 feet mean
sea level and had just changed his heading from 350 degrees to 318
degrees.
The pilot stated, "I was looking down at my map as part of this 'normal
scan' that I do when the collision occurred." The pilot stated, "I never
saw
the other airplane." The pilot further stated that the aircraft pitched
down
and went into an uncommanded left turn, requiring him to stabilize the
angle
of bank by holding full right aileron. The pilot reported that he then
realized that the engine had come off the airplane, but he was still able
to
maintain the nose down attitude and keep his speed up. The pilot further
reported that he then attempted to move the elevator and rudder enough to
see if they were responsive, which they were. The pilot stated that as the
airplane continued in the left turn through a southerly heading to an
easterly heading he saw what appeared to be parts of "something" falling
out
of the sky below him. The pilot said, "...that's when I thought I'd been
hit
by another airplane." The pilot reported that as he proceeded turning and
losing altitude rapidly, he picked out a field where he thought he could
land. The pilot said, "I moved the flap handle a little to see how much
they
moved, and when I saw they worked I decided to add some flap to reduce my
speed as I approached the field." The pilot stated that he then applied
right rudder to raise the left wing before "clipping" the tops of some
trees
and going through one power line wire which bordered the field on the
south.
The pilot stated that after the airplane impacted the ground and came to
rest, he immediately exited the airplane and sought help at a nearby
house.
The aircraft had come to rest in an inverted position on a magnetic
heading
of 120 degrees. There was no post impact fire.

A witness, who is also a private pilot and the owner of the property where
the Cessna 210J came to rest, reported that while in his house he heard an
airplane flying around, prompting him to go outside to see what it was.
The[i]
witness stated that he looked up and thought he heard airplanes overhead,
then saw the two accident aircraft coming together. The witness further
stated, " saw them about 5 to 8 seconds before they hit. Both were
straight and level. Neither took evasive action in any way." The witness
stated that one was heading north and the other one was heading northeast
when he saw them hit and parts started coming at him. The witness further
stated that after the parts hit the ground he looked up again and saw "the
silver aircraft" gliding north without an engine before it went out of
sight
over some trees.

The Cessna 170B's engine was located approximately one-half mile southwest
of where the aircraft came to rest. The airplane's right cabin door and
left
lower cowling were found approximately three-quarters of a mile south of
this location.

The Cessna 210J's engine, propeller, and main cabin area were located
approximately one-quarter of a mile south of where the Cessna 170B came to
rest. The wing was located approximately 400 feet south of the main cabin
area, and the airplane's tail section was discovered in a thick brush area
one-half mile south of the main cabin.

At 2031, a special aviation surface weather observation taken at the
Olympia
Airport, Olympia, Washington, located 11 nautical miles northwest of the
collision reported wind 220 degrees at 5 knots, visibility 10 statute
miles,
broken clouds at 2,600 feet, overcast clouds at 4,900 feet, temperature 12
degrees C, dew point 7 degrees C, and an altimeter of 30.03 inches of
Mercury.

Both pilots are well known and respected in the Puget Sound area. Amazing
that the pilot of the 170 was able to fly his plane at all:

This is the second NTSB report I've read where pilots were able to maintain
control of an engine-less plane.

How is this possible? Without an engine up front, the CG would pitch so far
aft that the plane should fall like a maple leaf -- yet these two guys were
able to nose the plane over and maintain flight.

How can this be?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

How can this be?

Just goes to show: "Never stop flying the airplane."

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://pocketgear.com/products_searc...veloperid=4415
____________________

The only "successful" flights I have seen after an engine departs, involved
VERY steep bank angles until VERY near the ground. Both a/c (A T6 at Reno,
and a Swift in Idaho) came to rest close to the engine that had departed. I
assume the engine didn't glide very well.
Al Gerharter


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:eAFxc.19854$HG.16770@attbi_s53...
Both pilots are well known and respected in the Puget Sound area.
Amazing
that the pilot of the 170 was able to fly his plane at all:

This is the second NTSB report I've read where pilots were able to
maintain
control of an engine-less plane.

How is this possible? Without an engine up front, the CG would pitch so
far
aft that the plane should fall like a maple leaf -- yet these two guys
were
able to nose the plane over and maintain flight.

How can this be?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck opined

Both pilots are well known and respected in the Puget Sound area. Amazing
that the pilot of the 170 was able to fly his plane at all:

This is the second NTSB report I've read where pilots were able to maintain
control of an engine-less plane.

How is this possible? Without an engine up front, the CG would pitch so far
aft that the plane should fall like a maple leaf -- yet these two guys were
able to nose the plane over and maintain flight.

How can this be?

AIrspeed. Given enough airsped a tail (or nose) heavy aircraft can fly. But
the feedback becomes positive instead of negative. If you slow down the tail
drops. More down elevator is needed increasing drag. Get too slow and you
cannot recover. Computers can handle the problem better than people. See late
model jet aircraft with relaxed stability.



-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

In article eAFxc.19854$HG.16770@attbi_s53, Jay Honeck wrote:
How is this possible? Without an engine up front, the CG would pitch so far
aft that the plane should fall like a maple leaf -- yet these two guys were
able to nose the plane over and maintain flight.

I suspect at nearly full forward elevator, the tail is producing upforce
(rather than the usual downforce) - it becomes a lifting surface. I
should imagine the aircraft would become extremely twitchy in pitch
though.

The tail on most light taildraggers can hold the aft fuselage up on the
ground with virtually no airspeed (many can do it whilst stationary
given sufficient propwash over the tail). Even our little C140 could
keep the tail up at low airspeed with two fat buggers in the cabin (who
are behind the main wheels), so the tail will generate a reasonable
amount of lift.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"