C172 crash at Coney Island

LWG wrote:

Yeah, but both Newsweek *and* Dan Rather's C-BS news are saying it.
Gotta be
true, doesn't it?

Didn't your mother ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?


--
Peter

On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:11:35 -0400, Corky Scott
wrote:


I'm not absolutely sure about this but I kind of thought there was a
time when "tailspin" was what a spin was called, by everyone.

This might have been around the first WW or during the barnstorming
period afterward, but I believe it was part of the popular vocabulary.

See:

http://home.comcast.net/~cjh5801a/Tailspin.htm

Don
(it shouldn't have been necessary to point this out to someone named
after a character in Gasoline Alley. |;^} 8 )

Don Tuite wrote:

See:

http://home.comcast.net/~cjh5801a/Tailspin.htm

I didn't see anything in there about the origination of the term "tailspin." If
you inferred from the article that the author made it up to aquire a name for
his character, this is certainly not true. The term "tailspin" was used during
WWI to describe some sort of spin, and French (at least) pilots were required to
demonstrate recovery from one before being assigned to combat. Nodhoff & Hall
state that "the tailspin had a bad reputation in those days" when writing about
their flight training in "Falcons of France." Both flew for France during the
Great War, and Norhoff was one of the top French aces.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

H.P. wrote:
Two older males at *145* pounds each? A scenario more plausible in
southeast Asia, perhaps.

I weighed 145 *or less* until I was in my late 40s. I'm 5'9" tall. Not uncommon
at all in America even today.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

On Tue, 24 May 2005 03:46:44 GMT, George Patterson
wrote:

Don Tuite wrote:

See:

http://home.comcast.net/~cjh5801a/Tailspin.htm

I didn't see anything in there about the origination of the term "tailspin." If
you inferred from the article that the author made it up to aquire a name for
his character, this is certainly not true.

I was establishing a provenance for the term dating back to at least
1928.

Don

In article .com,
says...



James Robinson wrote:
Guy Elden Jr wrote:

This is probably the only time I'm willing to speculate here,
because I
fly a 172SP

According to the FAA database, was a 172S. Does that change your
comments any?

Aren't the 172S and 172SP the same plane? I believe the official
model number is 172S, and SP is the name Cessna puts on it.

The 172R was the new version 172 introduced in '96 or '97 with the
derated IO-360 at 160 hp. The follow on was the 172S with less derated
IO-360 at 180 hp. I think those are the only two current models of
the 172.

I think so too. Not only are they the only two current, but I don't
think there ever was an "S" that was not an "SP". It's often called
"172S - Skyhawk SP". The useful load for the "SP" is a bit higher than
the "R", but both, with all their creature comfort and tech goodies,
are significantly lower than the older series, "M" etc. I often fly
older and newer - I wiould check W/B very carefully, using real weights
of the individuals, before putting four in an older 172. I would not
even consider putting four adults in a newer 172.

G Faris

On Mon, 23 May 2005 14:13:26 -0400, T o d d P a t t i s t
wrote:

By using LOL, we'd be substituting a word that IMHO
perpetuates the misunderstanding of what happens at the
aerodynamic stall AOA. Many pilots seem to think that lift
somehow "disappears" when the plane stalls. It doesn't.
Above the stall angle of attack lift begins to decrease with
AOA, while below that angle, it increases with AOA.
Nonetheless, it's quite possible to fly with a wing fully
stalled, and less lift than at the lower AOA. Airshow
performers do it often, and we do it with one wing or both
wings in a spin.

But Todd, aren't you playing a bit with semantics here? After all,
not many of us fly tiny extreme performance airplanes that have a
power to weight ratio that allows them to literally hang vertically on
their prop. In that case, the prop has taken over as the wing, and
it's obvious that it isn't suffering from LOL. ;-)

As to the spin, which way is the airplane going in the spin: up, down
or staying level? If the airplane is going down, isn't that an
indication that the airplane has suffered an overall loss of lift?

I'm not lobbying for LOL as THE proper and only term to use, "Wing
Stall" seems pretty accurate too.

Corky Scott

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
Four people died aboard a 172 that crashed at Coney Island today
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/ny...2crash.html?hp).

According to witness descriptions, the plane approached the shore at
low altitude, turned sharply, and then plummeted vertically. The
witnesses had the usual confusion about "stalling" and interpreted the
crash as a loss of power, but it sounds like it may have been a
classic stall resulting from inadequate airspeed during a steep turn.
Coney Island is close to a section of airspace where the Class B has a
floor just above 500', so it may be that the plane hadn't climbed much
above that altitude, and tried to turn abruptly away from the shore in
order to avoid overflying a built-up area too low.

--Gary


My Off-the-Wall Guess:

1. Engine quit (fuel exhaustion?)
2. Pilot lowered nose to maintain airspeed, glide to beach landing
3. Male passenger in right front seat panicked, grabbed controls and
pulled back.
4. In ensuing struggle, airspeed bled off, aerodynamic stall.
5. Crash.

John Lowry
Flight Physics

John T Lowry wrote:

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

Four people died aboard a 172 that crashed at Coney Island today
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/ny...2crash.html?hp).

According to witness descriptions, the plane approached the shore at
low altitude, turned sharply, and then plummeted vertically. The
witnesses had the usual confusion about "stalling" and interpreted the
crash as a loss of power, but it sounds like it may have been a
classic stall resulting from inadequate airspeed during a steep turn.
Coney Island is close to a section of airspace where the Class B has a
floor just above 500', so it may be that the plane hadn't climbed much
above that altitude, and tried to turn abruptly away from the shore in
order to avoid overflying a built-up area too low.

--Gary



My Off-the-Wall Guess:

1. Engine quit (fuel exhaustion?)
2. Pilot lowered nose to maintain airspeed, glide to beach landing
3. Male passenger in right front seat panicked, grabbed controls and
pulled back.
4. In ensuing struggle, airspeed bled off, aerodynamic stall.
5. Crash.

John Lowry
Flight Physics


What about and accelerated stall. No fuel exhaustion, but just an un
coordinated tight turn?

--
Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

"Ross Richardson" wrote in message
...
John T Lowry wrote:

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

Four people died aboard a 172 that crashed at Coney Island today
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/ny...2crash.html?hp).

According to witness descriptions, the plane approached the shore at
low altitude, turned sharply, and then plummeted vertically. The
witnesses had the usual confusion about "stalling" and interpreted
the crash as a loss of power, but it sounds like it may have been a
classic stall resulting from inadequate airspeed during a steep turn.
Coney Island is close to a section of airspace where the Class B has
a floor just above 500', so it may be that the plane hadn't climbed
much above that altitude, and tried to turn abruptly away from the
shore in order to avoid overflying a built-up area too low.

--Gary



My Off-the-Wall Guess:

1. Engine quit (fuel exhaustion?)
2. Pilot lowered nose to maintain airspeed, glide to beach landing
3. Male passenger in right front seat panicked, grabbed controls and
pulled back.
4. In ensuing struggle, airspeed bled off, aerodynamic stall.
5. Crash.

John Lowry
Flight Physics


What about and accelerated stall. No fuel exhaustion, but just an un
coordinated tight turn?

--
Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

Your guess is as good, or as poor, as mine. But one report I read
mentioned the nose coming up once or twice just before the airplane took
that final dive.

John Lowry
Flight Physics