Peter Masak killed in 15 Meter Nationals crash

I don't think so, my Acrobat is up to date, and I can not get the file
either!!!

Brian
"Asbjorn Hojmark" wrote in message
city.dk...
On 03 Jun 2004 13:43:01 GMT,
(MikeYankee) wrote:

My computer has crashed twice trying to download from this link.

Maybe you should upgrade your Acrobat Reader.

Anyone know another source?

Try www.hojmark.org/x/Freeflight-03-06-pp6-9.html

HTH,
-A
--
The Usenet Sect -- Resistance is futile. You will assimilate ò-|

The newsletter appears to be on a very slow server and takes quite a while
to download. Try leaving your PC to stew over the link for a while, it
eventually gets it sorted.

Ian


"BGMIFF" wrote in message
...
I don't think so, my Acrobat is up to date, and I can not get the file
either!!!

Brian
"Asbjorn Hojmark" wrote in message
city.dk...
On 03 Jun 2004 13:43:01 GMT,
(MikeYankee) wrote:

My computer has crashed twice trying to download from this link.

Maybe you should upgrade your Acrobat Reader.

Anyone know another source?

Try www.hojmark.org/x/Freeflight-03-06-pp6-9.html

HTH,
-A
--
The Usenet Sect -- Resistance is futile. You will assimilate ò-|

Does somebody know why the Peter Masak crashed?

George

Earlier, George Vranek wrote:

Does somebody know why the Peter Masak crashed?

Tom Knauff has retraced his flight in a motorglider,
and arrived at what I believe to be a credible explanation
of the sequence of events depicted in the flight recorder
data. The final event was probably a spin, but I don't
think we can ever be certain what precipitated it.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

Does somebody know why the Peter Masak crashed?

Below is Tom Knauff's newsletter addressing this:

I’ve had lots of emails asking for any information about Peter Masak’s
accident. Doris and I flew our Scheibe SF28A motorglider, retracing Peter’s
flight. There is nothing remarkable about the events leading up to the
accident.



He was obviously planning to fly to, and over Tussey ridge, into ridge lift and
then south to a turnpoint. If he were successful, he would have been the only
pilot to do so, and probably would have easily won the day. Only two other
pilots flew to a nearby turnpoint, (Spruce Creek) and then returned towards the
contest site.



We began retracing the flight by flying the course and altitude as he crossed
the Huntingdon valley, west bound towards Tussey Ridge. Tussey is about 1,900
MSL feet high in the direction he was heading and from a few miles away, it
would have been easily seen he would need to find some lift in order to clear
the top of the mountain.



Approaching Tussey from about 3 miles away, it would be obvious he would need
to try ridge soaring another ridge in order to gain altitude. It is hard to
explain, but Tussey Mountain doubles back on itself, then doubles back again as
it continues South.



Peter flew around the end of the 2,200 ft high mountain, and maintained 1,833
feet for several seconds before the short ridge makes a slight bend so the
moderately strong SW winds were more favorable. The glider gained altitude to
nearly 1,900 feet MSL, and he was only 2,500 feet downwind from the 1,900 ft
high Tussey Ridge.



There is a very good landing field at the base of the ridge, and I am sure he
was not concerned at all about being able to abort the attempt and land in this
or any of several other fields nearby.



As Doris and I retraced his flight, I could not help believe I would have done
the same thing in the same circumstances. The valley he was in was wide enough
that a rather shallow turn could have been made, and I am also sure Peter’s
confidence was buoyed by his slight gain of altitude.



He could not fly further into the “V� shaped valley, as the terrain was
rising in front of him. He would have tried to fly a sharp 180 degree turn to
return to the lifting air he had just passed. The flight track shows the glider
losing 350 feet of altitude in a very small space, which can only be caused by
a spin. It is a very heavily wooded area, and the glider hit a large tree.



Peter first began flying at our gliderport in 1979, and he was an accomplished
pilot. Why the glider spun probably won’t be answered. Although the glider
was called the Scimitar, it really was a Ventus after Peter replaced his own
designed wings with Ventus wings a couple years ago.



Many factors we might not consider at first could have contributed to the
accident. Weight and balance must be considered. Many pilots move the CG well
aft in an attempt for better climb performance. Peter might have lost weight,
which can also affect CG.



Peter was instrumental in designing winglets for gliders, and even tried a
sound-generated boundry layer device. I am unaware of any other modifications
he might have made on his glider.



When Doris and I were circling in the valley, a thermal gently lifted us
upward, and a Red Tailed Hawk joined our thermal. This bird probably has a nest
nearby. Could the same hawk have distracted Peter? Did he try to avoid it?



I doubt if we can know what actually happened, but I expect this accident will
cause many of us to re-evaluate the risk level we are comfortable with.

Thomas Knauff
Knauff & Grove Soaring Supplies
3523 South Eagle Valley Rd
Julian, Pa 16844
Phone (814) 355 2483
Fax (814) 355 2633

http://www.eglider.org/


Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ
illspam