Accident Review P210 Partial Power on Takeoff
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 07. 2024
- Accident Review: P210 Partial Power on Takeoff
/ flywire
FlyWire is about exploring flight and the freedom this incredible experience brings us on a personal level. Flying has always captured the imagination and excitement of living life to its fullest. Hi, I'm Scott Perdue. In a former life I flew the F-4 and F-15E, more recently I retired from a major airline. I've written for several aviation magazines over the years, was a consultant for RAND, the USAF, Navy, NASA as well as few others, wrote a military thriller- 'Pale Moon Rising' (still on Kindle). But mostly I like flying, or teaching flying. Some of the most fun I had was with Tom Gresham on a TV show called 'Wings to Adventure". We flew lots of different airplanes all over the country. Now with FlyWire I want to showcase the fun in flying, share the joy and freedom of flight and explore the world with you. Make sure you subscribe if you want to go along for the ride!
#Pilot #Fly #Flying #Fly yourself #aviation #FlyingTraining #LearntoFly #adventure #military aviation #aviationhistory
Website: www.flywire.online
Merch Links: T-Shirts, My Novel: www.flywire.online/merch
Twitter: @FlyWireO / flywire.online
Facebook: / flywireonline
accident review p210 partial power on takeoff
It is very fortunate that nobody was seriously hurt in this mishap. Scott, I greatly appreciate you sharing your considerable insight with us and as with every safety breifing that you give, I will add more to my working knowledge in practicing safe and rewarding general aviation for as long as I can. As for me, excellent and well done, thanks.
Good analysis and speculation Scot "Unsupported Wishful thinking" describes it exactly. Having been a Cessna Dealer who specialized in 210's and having personally owned every model from a 210A to a P210R and several at least a dozen Turbo and Pressurized 210s I've had a few engine anomalies. One that is similar to this incident was a low time 76' model T210 with the 285 max continuous TSIO 520 rather than the 310hp/300hp continuous model engine. I bought the aircraft which had been setting in Mesa AZ for about 5 years without being flown. I had the aircraft extensively inspected and obtained a ferry permit. The only issue I encountered was that cly leakage was a bit excessive around the rings at about 50 PSI. Boroscope of all cylinders appeared normal with no pitting or rust. We squirted a bit of Marvel in all the jugs and let it soak overnight and did a run-up the next day and cly pressures came up about 5 psi per cly,but concluded it was because of setting and should improve on the flight back to Oregon.
The Next day I departed a bit later than planned as the air temp at Mesa approached 120f, downhill and with about 5kts of tail wind, with topped tanks and about 300lbs of aircraft parts and luggage. I figured density altitude added 20% to my expected takeoff roll and an abort point. Run up was smooth but takeoff acceleration was slow but I broke ground just at my abort point and about 100ft raised the gear only to hear the electric gear pump stop just as the gear was in trail and the front and rear gear doors were open, and the aircraft started to sink. I held a bit below best rate of climb but continued to sink, I advanced the throttle beyond red line on MP until I heard the over-pressure pop-off valve open and then reduced throttle a tad, I checked the gear pump and breaker and recycled the gear switch with no luck as the Tower said "If you can make it around that hill to the right there's a road you can crash on!" After dodging some cactus I saw the road I thought I might be able to manually extend the gear with the hand pump, and after two pumps the motor re-started and the gear extended and doors closed, and I was able to maintain altitude at about cactus level. I then was able to retract the gear and started climbing away at about 300fpm but noticed the CHT was in the red. Reducing power to top of the green and gaining speed soon returned CHT to normal. On returning home cylinders were up to about 70/80 and power Improved to 'normal'
In that situation if I had allowed airspeed to decrease or tried to turn back to the airport, instead of focusing on getting out of that situation or doing as slow as possible off-airport landing while I had the chance the outcome would have been worse, and If I had tried to turn back to the airport, even worse. "land or crash straight ahead as slow as possible" was what I mentally prepare for on every takeoff no matter if it's a Single, Twin or a helicopter.
I've had several p210s including a P210R with the longer wing and higher HP TISO550, And a the early P210's at full gross in hot weather require a considerable takeoff run, and I found that if I rotated at at below 80kts, once out of ground effect the aircraft would typically mush, and if pitch angle was increased with the aircraft dirty, climb could be pretty marginal, and if at high density altitude if you slowed below best angle of climb I'd guess you could sink.
AC on a P210I would estimate pulls about 8 to 10HP. pressurization system is bleed air off the turbo and the turbos have a good surge margin (Excess capacity) and even if the cabin pressure was set at or below field elevation no power loss should result unless possibly the manual cabin dump valve was open, but I seem to recall the lowest cabin alt available on a P210 was about 3,500' so in Texas I say not a factor.
High outside air temps CAN BE A HUGE FACTOR in P210s on takeoff and climb, the difference between say 70f and 120f Other than the heat exchanger for cabin heat, early P210s did not have a factory engine inercooler, and on a hot day performance can be degraded by I would estimate 20%, or even more due to the very hot air being pumped into the engine. As the P210s have added intake air restriction due to the extra plumbing, cabin heat exchanger and I believe a higher ratio turbo charger the intake air charge can be less dense than a non-pressurized Turbo 210, and even at the same take-off weight the P210s are more sluggish, 34.5" of MP in a P210 does not seem to be the same as 34.5'" as in a T-210 unless the P has an aftermarket intercooler, but most of those don't do much at take off speeds. I found that turning on cabin heat in a P210 in a hot climb helped a little bit but at the risk of heat stroke. I knew A P210 owner who used to turn on cabin heat for takeoff as he deemed it helped with performance but I cannot verify.
Turbo-normalized Bonanzas I've had seem to suffer from similar takeoff and climb performance losses. A non-turbo A36 I had would blow the doors off an identical Turbo-normalized A36 up to about 8000ft.
It's not uncommon for a new engine to make less than book power, say 8%, If there was an exhaust leak timing issue, or just unseated rings then power might have been down 10 to 30%, High OAT another say 8%, Air Conditioning 10% so you could be looking at possibly 50% power loss. If cowel flaps were closed high temps on a new engine more on top of that. Combine that with poor energy management and climb profile and you have a recipe for just what happened.
Thanks Jack for watching and commenting. I considered talking to the owner/pilot, and decided not to do so. Given the comments from him and his friends I am glad I didn't. I fully expect that pilot technique was a huge factor in this accident. The liftoff was early on the runway for a shallow turn and the airplane to end up where it did. Evincing one reason for the low energy state, a working AC system was just enough power drain.... just a little more than the drag caused by the gear retraction in your case.
I've flown plenty of turbo'd airplanes and you hit the nail on the head, they don't preform as good as NA at low altitudes. In this takeoff it wasn't terribly hot, DA wasn't high. Liftoff was early and energy was extraordinarily low. I strongly suspect other mechanical problems exist, but others will have to investigate that. What I do know is the AC was on, accounting for a significant power reduction in a marginal takeoff situation. I doubt it was the sole cause. I can get a pretty good handle on the energy state of the airplane and extrapolate that back to the runway.
Given all the noise being generated by 'interested' parties there is an attempt to shape the narrative and that is beginning to smell. One thing I can credit the pilot for is that he did not attempt to climb over the trees, if he had done so this would be a stall/spin accident review.
Why do turbonormalized airplanes perform worse at low altitude? Are they rated for less power than the NA engines? If the HP rating is the same, a turbonormalized engine should not perform worse than NA unless something is amiss with the engine.
@@FlyWirescottperdue Was the owner also PIC that day? I think I know one of the people aboard that plane. He is recuperating nicely.
@@LTVoyager Many 'Turbo-normalized' engines are conversions or after market kits fitted to normally aspirated engines. As those engines are not certified to operate much above sea level manifold pressure adding additional boost above sea level pressure could drive the engine beyond it's certified maximum power. As the system is intended to restore sea level power at altitude they can be installed without any internal engine mods or recertification.
Even though a turbo-normalized system might deliver 30" Hg or sea level manifold pressure it's doing so at a much increased temperature typically 130f to 160f intake air temperature from say 70f. 30" of manifold pressure at 150f would to the engine be like taking off in 150f at sea level, so power at the same manifold pressure is typically reduced. That's why a Factory Turbo 210 engine (TISO520 NB) uses 36.5" of manifold pressure to produce the same power a normally aspirated IO-520 does at sea level of 29.29" That extra 6.5" or 3.2psi of boost makes up for the hot intake air.
Putting a turbocharger turbinie in the exhaust stream also increases exhaust back pressure that at sealevel also reduces power.
To recover the lost power from a turbo normalized Bonanza on takeoff or climb you could likely add 2" or 3" of manifold but the way the most of those kits are certified you have to adhere to non-turbo MP limits.
There are some factor turbo-normalized aircraft such as the early Cessna 320's that used TISO-470s and were limited to about 31.5" for takeoff but the also used a modified Camshaft profile for longer valve stroke so the engine got more air/fuel a the same MP. I had a 1963 Cessna 320 with the 470 engines that cruised 230mph on 25gph, on the same fuel burn as a non-turbo 310 cruising about 210mph. The turbo-normalized system on the 320 had no intercoolers so about 15% of waste heat energy normally lost out the exhaust stack was recovered, and improved thermodynamic efficiency giving a boost in power with no penalty in fuel burn.
I had a couple of later a 1966 320s with the TISO 520 engines, they were basically the same speed but burned 28 to 32 gph, due to the drag of larger props, more weight and mostly energy loss of intercoolers.
I had a 1977 T-210 I was talked into adding an intercooler to, Gained about 300fpm in climb but 10kts of cruise speed at 1.5gph more fuel burn due to the drag of the intercooler and the the the energy it was tossing overboard. Similar experience in a Pressureized 337, With intercoolers my climb on a + 20F day weent up 300fpm but my fuel burn went up from 22.5gph to 26gph at 200mph cruise.
I've had some Mooney's with Turbo-normalizing, (2 turbo Chaparral models and a 201 with a turbo normalizing kit that used a manual waste gate you had to close at higher altitude when you wanted to make up for lost MP. The manual wastegate bypassed a lot of the exhaust heat from the turbo until needed so the degradation to in power was minimal. The Bonanza turbo-normalizing kits were always online and heating intake air.
The Mooney (Rajay) systems were not intended to be used for take off but once on a short hot 9,000ft density altitude takeoff in the 201 I closed the waste gate on take off and ran the engine to about 32" with good results. I had practiced boosted takeoffs before so I new what to expect and to do to prevent the engine from over-boosting.
If I can provide any other insights let me know.
@@jackoneil3933 OK, I was thinking more of factory systems where they truly should provide the same takeoff HP rating as an NA engine. An engine that doesn’t do that really isn’t turbonormalized. It is turbo handicapped. 😁
Scott, you glossed over the “retract the gear, perhaps” part but it deserves more discussion. Two crucial items come to mind. Had he retracted the gear, his glide options would have measureably increased. Secondly, his chances of not ending up upside down would have measureably increased. One of the main reasons there was no fire was that the plane remained rightside up. After a hard off-field landing which shears off the nose gear and one of the mains, the plane almost always digs in and flips over. I guarantee you, had that happened here, there would have been a fire. For low wing planes, getting upside down also means the very real chance that the doors will not open due to ground interference. My Velocity XL-5 RG took this to a guarantee of not getting out because of its gull wing doors. My briefing to passengers (and also as a reminder to me) was this: In the event of the need for an off-airport landing, the ownership of this aircraft reverts back to the insurance company and my job is to get you all down safely. My first choice is going to be a road with the gear down, my second choice is going to be on the water with the gear up (Velocity RG’s can make ONE really nice water landing and can float for days), and my last choice is on flat, clear ground with the gear UP. Here is the crash axe and here is where to break out windows if need be.” I had many a pilot question me on this until I pointed up at the gullwing doors.
I did. That is indeed a point for discussion. The drag of the moving gear on the Cessna is considerable. You have good points.
Ty Mr Perdue...good report...Glad they made it
So, this is actually a good video for passengers as well. If I'm sitting there and I hear the pilot saying "abort takeoff" then maybe I'm better off telling the pilot to iron out the bugs without me. I'll be in the bar...
You live there Gunny, so you know there's a lot more to the story than can be told. Thanks.
I had an engine that ran fine during runup and seemed to produce normal power on takeoff, but ran rough immediately afterward. Immediate return to the field, mechanic found fowled plugs. I have tried to do a better job of mentally preparing for engine failure on takeoff but am not religious about it. This story motivates me to be more observant and always prepare ahead of time. Thank you.
It’s amazing how you will focus on the sound of your engine after experiencing multiple power failures. I only relax when I shut down at the fuel pumps after a flight. Aircraft spark plugs suck. Magnetos produce a weak spark and the lead in the fuel causes fouling. I really like the idea of electronic magnetos with motorcycle spark plugs. They actually produce a spark!
Chicken plugs??? That sounds like your problem right there....
Thank you… always impactful food for thought.
Glad the occupants made it out unhurt. Disappointing to see a clean P210 crumpled up like that. T/O heavy on a hot day with A/C still on. That could have been avoided with checklists. I agree. I knew an excellent C-90 corporate pilot who didn't use check lists. A 172 PPT as well. It never concerned me back then. It does now. Seen so many cases like this on youtube.
PIC is punching some pretty big holes through the Swiss cheese model. One hole can be enough to kill you. Three?
Really glad they are alive. One thing I will credit the PIC with: flying it all the way to the scene of the crash. At least it looks that way. He didn't yank the yoke back and stall into the tree line. Just drove it through them. That is a tough instinct to overcome.
You are absolutely right!
The occupants of that airplane are VERY lucky to be alive. The fatal T-210 accident at KFWS a couple years ago was another exercise in not using the checklist. The pilot and sole occupant was shooting touch and goes in 30+ knot gusty winds and simply failed to switch fuel tanks at some point during his circuits, resulting in fuel starvation (empty tank) right after takeoff and an ensuing stall / spin at very low altitude.
Such a tragedy and so preventable.
My checklists say nothing about switching tanks during touch and goes.
Thank you for the video.
in 77 flew new set of 300 hp Colemill Con. engines in a C-310 1.5 hrs with a big briefing from the old man Mr. Colebert -- with a chart to complete and call back ! BTW I was taxied in hangar--went in office signing paperwork with Colbert. Back out in hangar both engines were off and could not keep hand on cylinder fins ! FAST !
I had a somewhat similar situation with my C-210. It would sometimes not develop full power during run-up on an intermittent basis. Everything seemed to check out but the problem persisted. Once during a high-power run-up we noticed a very small dribble of fuel was coming from the small weep hole in the fuel injection distribution device that sits atop the engine. It turns out the spring-loaded diaphragm was defective inside the distribution device. Replacing the diaphragm fixed the problem. Hard to diagnose but easy to fix!
Spot on….
As usual, great report.I have a T210 (1500 hrs) and if winds are more than about 7-8, while in downwind at TPA, loss of engine requires an almost immediate turn to the numbers, lightly loaded. It's a heavy bird and will float nicely if you stay on top of the speed/glide curve. If you let her sag or mush, she sinks very fast, seconds. I've learned to point to the runway and if required slip it down rather than try and manage the energy via some sort of pattern. Btw, any more than 10 deg flaps is considerable drag in a 210 and will bite you after the initial bump up.
Bump up?
@@nickr5658 post flap deployment lift bump
If you are on downwind already at TPA and loses you engine totally or partial? It depends. Turnaround or Turnback?. I used to teach those maneuvers and know a lot of details about both 2 of them. Practice engine LOTOT from every turn of traffic pattern. Most engine fails are LOTOT.. Partial power kind.
FWIW, 12 second notification. Clear prop....😎
@Scott Perdue, you've certainly whacked the beehive with this one. Very good video. I'm going for some more popcorn and continue reading the comments! Thanks again.
Good stuff.
My thoughts immediately went to the fuel system. The fuel pump on the 1982 T-210 with Continental TSIO-520-R that I flew had enough power to flood the engine and the fuel pressure (and PPH fuel flow) had to be adjusted during the take-off roll.
The over pressure generally was only an issue on the first morning flight of the day. I know of that happening on a couple of occasions with pilots not familiar with that engine.
The Take Off check list calls for fuel flow of 186 PPH and the Normal Climb checklist calls for fuel flow reduction during normal climb to 120 PPH. There are two notes: "On hot days, it may be necessary to utilize the auxiliary fuel pump to maintain 120 PPH fuel flow." "On hot days, turn on auxiliary fuel pump momentarily if switching tanks in climb."
The Maximum Performance Climb calls for reduction of fuel flow from 186PPH to 162PPH with the note "On hot days at higher altitudes, be alert for fuel vapor indications. If fuel flow fluctuations are observed or if desired fuel flows cannot be maintained, turn auxiliary fuel pump ON and reset the mixture as required. If symptoms persist, select a single fuel tank having adequate fuel."
The 1980 P210 had a Continental TSIO-520-P6B. The weight was a couple pounds different that the TSIO-520-R but I think the fuel systems were probably pretty much the same. My T-210 also had air-conditioning.
Reminds me of the 172, N5532R. Two big guys, full fuel, high DA, couldn't take off on the 1st attempt, so they just taxied back and tried it again, with sadly predictable results.
Thanks!
Scott - I have 500 hours in P210s (including stock TSIO520's, a TSIO550 "Javelin" and a TN550 Vitatoe). I'm about to pick up my own Vitatoe TN550 conversion (just like this airplane) after 6 months of work. I know the owner of this airplane, and I know this airplane (put an offer on it at the same time I was buying mine as a contingency). As you might imagine, I was VERY interested in the details of this incident - given that I'm about to have the same engine conversion (there are approximately 80 of them flying with massive success, FYI). I reached out to the owner the instant that I heard about the incident. As such, I have first-person details of the entire 60-second flight. While you make some excellent, generic points about what can go wrong, checklist usage, etc...with all due respect, you are absolutely, totally, completely, 100% wrong in EVERY single aspect of your "analysis" of the cause of this PARTICULAR incident. I do respect and enjoy your videos and I am a fan. However, in this case I have FIRST HAND (not "first responder" or "witness") information on this incident. I'm not going to elaborate due to pending NTSB investigation, insurance, etc. Simply put, the engine was absolutely making 100% power (per the Garmin EIS installed on the aircraft). 31” MP, 2700 RPM, and 34-35 GPH is definitely "full power" for the Vitatoe TN550. There was no "aborted takeoff". It was an intentional systems test (as part of the TN conversion break-in/testing procedure) - which the aircraft passed with flying colors. (I'm looking forward to doing this same test on my plane in the next week on a 9000' runway where she's being converted.) I'll leave it at that until more comes out. Please stop calling it a "partial power loss on takeoff" as it was simply not the case. That is a fact. Not speculation. That all said, the actual cause of the incident will be informative for sure - and probably worthy of a video and a lot of discussion. But trust me when I say that this incident had nothing to do with mechanical issues - nor was it due to an "emergency" - at least not in the classic sense..
Thanks for watching and commenting. I am amused by a couple of responses I've gotten on this video. The fact of the matter is that the airplane crashed at very low speed. If the engine was producing full power I'd love to hear about the theory. At this point in post 'accident' progress the folks in the airplane begin adapting the story to fit a narrative, either consciously, or subconsciously. In short I would discount the 'story' at this point. Especially, if the facts show a different story. The same goes with eye-witnesses, very rarely can they fill in the whole picture. Small pieces perhaps.
In the immediate aftermath of an incident, with adrenaline pumping and some degree of shock existent, folks tend to tell the truth. The witness I talked with related the 'story' as it was told to him at the scene, moments after it happened. He combined that with what he observed in the airplane and the FAA/NTSB rep who came to look at the crash.
Given all the effort to discredit my video, I am beginning to suspect there is another motive to alter the narrative. Given the setup of the incident, the energy state of the airplane and the switches (both AC on), even if the airplane was at full power that was not enough to fly. I'll stick by 'Partial Power'. Leaving the AC switches on and crashing your airplane would probably not demand a 709 ride. Crashing your airplane seconds after takeoff with an engine that was producing normal power would point to serious pilot error and would probably precipitate a 709 ride.
So, my question is why all this effort to control the narrative? Was the owner/pilot, not the one flying? Is this an insurance swap? A maintenance legality coverup? Even if one of those was the scenario, a simpler explanation is a more likely cause. Including, only one attempt at a takeoff.
The fact is the AC switches were on in the cockpit right after the accident. I trust the first responder way more than the pilot on this point. I would, however, bet that the switches are now off. Gotta wonder why all the effort to control the narrative.....
"Simply put, the engine was absolutely making 100% power"... so it was pilot error then? What could cause an aircraft able to utilize full power to behave so much like it was lacking in power? Walking and quacking like a duck...Occam's razor etc
I'm also looking to do the Vitatoe conversion for my P210 (why did your conversion take "6 months"?) I was hoping for a down time of 3 months...
@@sandhill9313 Keep in mind that there are 2 sides of the power curve. That fact seems to be going unnoticed here. But I'm not going to try to argue with all this "great analysis" .
Very well said. It reminds me I need to practice my checklists and rehearse emergency procedures on the ground. Might be valuable to get a large photo of the panel so you can run through the stuff on the ground with the checklist in hand
Great Observations Scott. Sorry I have been missing for a while. Sadly I have spent the last 2 months helping take care of our 87 year old mother. She passed June 27. Looking forward to your insights to aviation flight.
Sorry to hear of your loss James!
@@FlyWirescottperdue Thank You
👍☑ good review Scott as usual, tks. Almost to the 50k mark, you deserve it and more for the time and energy you put into these videos.
Thanks!
Our rule in the space program: If it's not operating as designed and you don't know why, you can't say it's okay to fly. There were exceptions. The Challenger disaster was was an example of breaking that rule. Last sentence of the Feynman Appendix to the Challenger report: For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
50F looks like a great airport. We have one very similar at Diamond Head, MS 66Y just south of I-10. I have some friends that live there,
I was listening when he was talking about 50F and he said Bourland Field. I was like no way, had to check my logbook. I took my initial flight training at 50F....ground school and solo. I finished my private at another field but....wow small world. Yes 50F is a great GA airport. My dad worked as a IA and mechanic at the field in the early 90s
Sounds like a case of getthereitis. Thank you for your coverage of aviation safety. Correct me if I am wrong, but commercial airline pilots and military pilots practice, practice, practice. They seem more aware of the danger involved. And I think they have a different mindset than other recreational pilots. Thanks for reminding the GA community to be prepared ahead of time. Thinking of a plan at the last second takes too long. Oh, and leave your ego behind. Giving up ahead of time if you are aware of an issue, might be better than the alternative..
Well said Jim!
I am no aviation expert but I believe one reason that GA has so many accidents is because evidently pilots do not train as much, on simulators, on the ground, checklists etc as military and commercial pilots do.
@@adriaba790 and aircraft are often very old, systems less capable.
Small GA is nowhere near as cutting edge as all other sectors of transportation.
@@adriaba790Background: I was a career military fighter pilot, half of it active duty and half in the ANG. I was also a Part 121 commercial pilot for 20 years. Tack onto that about 1,300 hours of GA time in gliders and as an owner/operator of a turbo single Rockwell 112TC Commander.
Oftentimes, I suspect the GA operator's lack of emergency and abnormal incident practice and recurrent training comes down to basic economics and ego. To give oneself some recurrent training often requires us to hire a CFI to go fly with us and give us some no-notice engine or systems malfunction training. It also invites the possibility of criticism of how we react and perform under those artificially stressful situations. Most pilots tend to be high ego, I know I am, so there's a built-in subconcious reluctance for us to invite criticism of our performance. You can add to that the economic drag of hiring a CFI, an hour or two of maintenance accumulation on the airplane, and fuel purchase, for an otherwise "unproductive flight", and it's easy to see why a lot of pilots don't do it. Prudence and common sense advocate for us to park the ego on the ground and pursue periodic recurrent training more often than a biennial review, but few pilots that I know do it. GA accidents like this one and many others every year dramatically demonstrate the need.
Look! There's Blanco, cutting Scott's lawn!
I like York’s safety tips... Thanks
“Your” not “York’s”... LOL
Thanks, caught me off guard for a second. I've got a neighbor here that has the nickname of York;) I didn't think I mentioned him in the video.
Always like your reviews, just the facts with some insight based lots of experience!
Cheap fuel? Temperature? Humidity? Possible moisture in fuel? Definitely too close to gross wt. - ? Distraction? (4 guys on a roll for wherever- that would be distracting). Fudging on the checklist is a reasonable possibility. Agree, they are important.
I like "unsupported wishful thinking." Seems to be epidemic these days, along with most everything else. What is it about Cessnas and flaps?
"Trying that same thing over - and over - is not a path to success..."
Tell me about it. I could wax more lyrical on that, too.
Why is it so many people have such trouble taking "no" for an answer? If the pilot had been paying attention, he wouldn't have made that second try. Instead we have the unfortunate result. Peer pressure? Groupthink?Eeesh.
Glad they all made it out ok. They really were lucky.
Thanks for sharing. Good report.
Whether a more realistic outlook or just flying somewhat tired airplanes or because of crop dusting, I developed the attitude that more incidents and accidents led to fewer fatalities. I still don't believe that an airplane will necessarily climb. Yes, there was a better field right by the not so good. When low what is available is in the near hemisphere. Having enough zoom reserve airspeed to maneuver is better than having a few hundred feet of altitude. Zoom reserve and then willingness and proficiency in managing that energy (airspeed is altitude and altitude is airspeed or law of the roller coaster) is more useful than just altitude without enough zoom reserve airspeed to choose to turn at whatever bank necessary and let the nose go down as designed.
Anyway, I think the price of the big airplane is just as limiting of realistic outlook as is the extra airspeed necessary to make them work.
Lord have mercy! What's up with the haters? Haters who post long responses without ANY common sense or pertinent facts themselves!
Quite entertaining for me! 🤣
Nevermind the haters, Scott. Carry on trying to educate and promote safety!
Good afternoon to all from SE Louisiana 6 Jul 22.
6:56 as my buddy Ward said to a friend of mine who wanted a hopped up motor, but no funds available, "Well, it's nice that you WANT these things, but... uhhh.........."
If he had tip tanks (17 gallons per side) and 4 people he was over gross for sure. I can’t tell from the photo if it did. The A/C could be all electric but thats still required to be off at take off. Pressurization isn’t a factor. All of that being said who flys with 3 passengers with a new engine? Maybe two pilots but never just passengers.
Damn lucky they were not killed. Plane is totaled, shame to see. A friend of mine had a P210, he said it was a pig and a maintenance hog always in the shop. Nothing to do with the accident but just an observation about the P210.
I hate airline style pattern approaches with GA aircraft. It's nuts what I see out there. I always prefer a high altitude Pitts style takeoff and landing pattern approach where you can easily make it to the runway.
Me too!
Low time pilot here - can you elaborate? I fly Cessnas - runway half way up the strut on downwind and turn base at 45 degrees from the touchdown… final dictated by wind direction. Thoughts? Reasonable? Thanks!
@@dade8881 It’s all about energy when you experience a power loss. Altitude provides airspeed which provides the energy you need to make it to a runway. Fly high! It’s amazing how comforting it is to be at 5,000’ agl when flying. It provides time and good decision processing when you lose power. On take off, hold the aircraft above the runway at full power until near the end and quickly climb for as much altitude as possible. When you arrive at an airport, circle at a high altitude to study the current conditions and traffic. Then do a circling downward approach above the runway into a tight pattern to land. With this approach you can always make the runway with your excess energy alone. CFI’s teach horrible pattern flying to new students. They always assume you will not lose power.
@@pittss2c601 thanks! Will practice 👍🏻
The checklist shown, as provided by the manufacturer, should have been re-written by the operator to reflect the actual equipment state of that very specific aircraft.
And adhered to.
Who knows, of the A/C was enough to prevent a clean takeoff...
Checklist, checklist, CHECKLIST!!!!!!!!
You nailed it, Scott, especially (to me) the part about not attempting that second takeoff when he aborted the first one for lack of power.
He doesn’t have a clue whether or not the engine was making power
I guess you really DIDN"T listen to what I said. I never said the engine was running rough or there was a mechanical problem. It wasn't delivering full power to the prop.... the airplane wouldn't climb and it crashed with the engine controls at full power.... AND the props bent back as evidence the engine was producing power. It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to figure that out.
The airplane crashed, it ran out of energy... tell me how? The further evidence was the AC switches (as in plural) were both on. If you are not aware of the situation, AC pulls a significant amount of power from the engine... like when you need it to take and climb. So, I stand by my statement. If this wasn't a partial power situation we would be talking about it. It might be a good idea to pay attention next time. Contributing factors were gross weight and possibly pilot technique.
@@FlyWirescottperdue I just don't care. You're speculating again. I used to take accident review/commentary on CZcams seriously but now its impossible. You've been appropriately called out by other commenters who know more than you about the situation but it won't make a difference - you'll get your comical accolades from people who were even further from the circumstances than you were and life goes on.
It's actually possible that the people on board don't know the whole situation. Or shade the truth about it unintentionally.
Scott thanks for getting right to your point that is why i watch your channel personally i would have exited the air plane before the second take off attempt and caught an Uber what i am seeing is the lack of mechanical knowledge amongst pilots in there decision making ability this goes for commercial pilots as will book smarts lacks common knowledge kills people i have a love hate relationship with flying putting my life in another's hands i have a private license not active anymore i came across some dumb pilot maneuvers in that time. thank you just might save another life???
Like they say, if it is not good on the ground it won't be any better in the air.
Thank God the fuel was contained!He was. very heavy and low on kinetics to attempt a complete go around wasn't he? Was he shooting for a suitable landing area or attempting the Impossible turn?
It was 359 pounds overweight. They screw it up. Luckily no fuel cell was ruptured thus no fire and possibly fatalities, considering the gear was down causing a possible flip over. 🤔
It will be interesting to find out what happened. Most of the time in accidents like this you can only find out what really happened if you know someone local. Thankfully we have Scott!
Since the folks on board survived I doubt the NTSB will pursue it. The FAA is unlikely to do so either unless they feel a pilot action is warranted. If there is a lawsuit the engine would likely be torn down, but we'll never hear of it. I'm afraid we have what we have.
@@FlyWirescottperdue do you expect the airplane will be totaled?
And what at the NTSB or FAA needs to change for one or both to routinely get involved in accidents like this?
@@PetesGuide What's needed to get the NTSB or FAA to investigate accidents like this? More of your tax dollars. I think they are striking the right balance. There are very few novel ways to end up in a field in a single engine airplane. This one seems to be "something is wrong that I should check now, but can't be bothered, I hope it works." Others are bad MX (clogged sump screen, never change/clean the oil/fuel filter), overloaded aircraft (density altitude). Water in the fuel. No fuel.
Bird strikes and catastrophe engine failures happen, but are thankfully very rare. If we all assume we will lose the engine on every takeoff, and brief that, and have a plan, we can increase the chance of survival.
@@marshallsherman4215 Maybe they will but when my brother sold his Helio Courier and the new owner crashed it on take off destroying it, all the investigation report said was the weather data and the pilots report of what happened. So I see where Scott is coming from
As always you are the voice of reason. Outstanding report.
Considering the cost of a factory new aircraft engine, I am surprised that more people don't break them in on an engine dyno. Yes, it would be a lot of fuel and the dyno time would also be expensive. But you'd be sure to have a constant high load for as long as it was running on the dyno.
Some do overhauls that way. Not many.
It's got that I wonder if you could find some information on an Aero Commander Dart tail number is N3626X. It was a nose over accident I would like to know if you would find out when it happened and where
“If at first you don’t lift off, try, try, fly again!
Guys that dont know turnbacks like him will try to do them in panic even from 50 feet agl. This guy tried one almost that low. Ignorant in panic will make huge mistakes on maneuvers he rejected practicing. So Ignorance is not the solution, Ignorance is the problem.
FINAL NARRATIVE:
The pilot reported that he was conducting a third maintenance test flight after a new engine had been installed with the airplane s co-owner and two other passengers on board. The airplane was full of fuel and no preflight weight and balance calculations were completed. During the takeoff roll, the pilot rotated about 51 kts, which was 20 knots below normal rotation speed, and the airplane became airborne briefly before it settled back on the runway. The pilot then added nose up trim, rotated at 55 kts, and climbed slowly. The pilot continued to climb the airplane when the co-owner heard the stall warning horn. The pilot made a left turn to avoid terrain at the south end of the runway and then setup for a forced landing as the airplane was unable to maintain altitude. During the forced landing, the airplane impacted trees and terrain. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and both wings. The pilot reported that the airplane was overweight and that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. A postaccident weight and balance calculation determined that the airplane was about 359 lbs over the maximum takeoff weight.
Also. Wasn’t this his second attempt to take off? I’d got out if I were a passenger.
@@davideskelin8266 Never under estimate the power of stupid people, during my Aviation time I look back and view them a hunks of meat waiting to hit something at high speed.
So you have to wonder what he did to convince himself that another takeoff attempt was a good idea. Seems that turning off the aircon was not part of his justification. It's not hard to check you are getting the revs you are expecting to see. I can't believe he would just give it another go if he did not see full power on the first attempt. Not without changing something.
Maybe the first attempt was just a full power run to check the engine and he was happy so back he went to do it for real. Which then leads you to think it was just a simple weight issue so he couldn't climb away
Even when the Caravans I used to fly were lightly loaded I always, without fail, turned the AC off prior to takeoff.
Four guys (at least some of them probably overweight), maybe a couple of backpacks with water, food, etc., full fuel, AC on....... was this a 'partial power' accident or a 'too heavy to fly' accident?
We don’t know yet.
You live at Bourland??? I know Nick, the owner and several pilot/homeowners there. I'm at T56
Hmm. That’s all I got to say about dat, Scott.
I started a comment 4 times, and stopped each time. Every time I read these reports by you, Dan or Juan, I can't help but think people have lost their respect, and/or fear of flying altogether. Why would you not have an exact plan for losing an engine/power on TO! I was taught this 50 years ago, what has changed? Have people lost common sense? Having a plan if your engine stops making power is not rocket science, is it?!? If people are not mechanically inclined maybe they need to do some advanced training. Maybe we need to test for that? Sorry for the rant here, it's just so sad. I'm really glad no one died in this one! It just seems like there is one every week where people do. 8( --gary
I'm not a pilot - except on MS Flight Simulator (which doesn't count for anything), so I'm painting with a pretty broad brush. You mentioned common sense. In my 71 years i've noted a change in human nature awary from this simple thing - a lack of common sense and a lack of fear. "After all, the great electronics will save my ass." No it won't. Good old fear of death is a healthy thing.
If my truck wont start, I don't keep cranking the engine until the battery dies -- common sense.
If my airplane doesn't produce the power I expect and need, "get there itis" will kill me - common sense.
I think your question regarding how common common sense is among people can be answered by reviewing how many responded to (or didn’t) common sense actions to prevent needless death during the pandemic.
@@marlinweekley51 I agree. There was no common sense applied during covid, particularly by national health officials such as Fauci and the CDC. Recommended cloth and paper masks was absolutely ludicrous when anyone with any understanding knows they don’t work against particles so small. They have not been allowed by OSHA in industry for exactly that reason. And lockdowns were equally stupid. So, I agree that most people nowadays have no understanding of science and little common sense.
Bro, they wouldn't have put four seats in it if couldn't carry four people.....
Lately lots off airport landings without full flaps, even with zero flaps.
I'm not a pilot Justin enthusiast but I was trained as a mechanic I never worked as a mechanic but I did a lot of mechanical work changing your oil is cheap insurance.
Scott,. just for clarity, 50F airport data shows NO airframe or engine repair facilities available, so where did the P210 have its engine maintenance and replacement?
There is a Cessna specialist mechanic there.
@@FlyWirescottperdue Roger that.
Scott, et al, while some of your message is valid, check list usage, pre-determined action upon engine failure and an accurate W/B, far to much was speculation. You disparage the pilot for not understanding the energy state of the aircraft and not landing in the larger field. MAYBE the pilot understood very well that he was to fast/high for the larger field and didn’t want to hit the trees head on! I believe leaving the landing gear down was helpful in absorbing and dissipating the crash energy. The fact there were no major problems injuries supports the pilots wise decision. That P210 appears to have tip tanks so I’ll bet your fuel guess was off and by the looks of the left wing separation at the root I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the left wing tank was compromised! I’ll bet plenty of fuel was dumped from that aircraft! You further state the A/C was on and you base that comment on hearsay from a firefighter. Bad form brother! The fan may have been activated, common in P210’s for airflow during taxi and departure, without the power robbing A/C compressor running. So stop condemning based on speculation and hearsay! And stop with the silly speculation that the pressure system robs engine power, it doesn’t. Regarding multiple, consecutive take offs, that seems very normal to me for a new engine as the fuel flow set up is being tweaked. Example- first take off the pilot notices the max FF not high enough so he aborts the take off, returns to the hanger for adjustment and makes a second attempt.
I don’t know what caused this accident and neither do you but you sure aren’t doin the pilot any favors! In fact, I’m wondering, because you stated this was your home airport, if you don’t actually know the pilot and have negative history? Could that be true?
Don't know the pilot, never met him. Your view of the energy in the airplane is incorrect. The Firefighter's observation is not Hearsay. I suggest checking the definition.
Final report is out. Care to comment?
The Idea that a engine driven electrical device steals anything other then Negligible HP is fact. As to the new engine if its same as original ( ie Factory Airframe cert) no weight and balance is in order. Power loss due to part failure or install issue is most likely. UPDATE...359 Lbs over MAX TO weight... from NTSB above.
5-10 hp for an a/c compressor and about 1hp for every 25amps of alternator draw is what I have read. Depending on how much hp you have in the first place, it could be noticeable. Any modern car turns of the a/c compressor automatically if you accelerate hard. Older cars had a WOT switch to turn off the compressor at full throttle. Seems like a simple thing to add to an airplane mechanically or through software so that the pilot doesn't need to do it.
@@bills6093 READ MY POST BY NTSB.... IT WAS 374LBS OVER MTO WEIGHT WITH A WEIGHT AND BALANCE OUT. STOP PONTIFICATING ON THINGS YOU HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT.
@@brucemiller8109 I saw both videos, don't need to read your post. The hp draw is simply factual. The fact that cheap cars have been smart enough to automatically turn off loads when necessary for a very long time now is also simply factual. It's stupid to make the pilot do his own load shedding, imo.
since they all walked away from this "good" landing, I believe a scathing review of this pilot's decision making needs to be discussed further. Call a spade a spade, Scott.
I think that is the definition of insanity. 😁
My gut reaction is that this feels like a guy overconfident about the power and reliability of his aircraft, not wanting to look like a p*ssy in front of his pals so he takes a second stab at the flight when maybe he should have worked out what went wrong with the first attempt. I reckon he and his pals used up all of their luck on this trip.
G'day Scott,
The aborted takeoff, full fat and heavy, after insufficient power, sounds really silly.
Trying all that, with the Air-Conditioner "On" is bringing it to the level of humming Beethoven Overtures,
Dum,
De dum dum..,
Dum
DUMB...!
I dunno if you ever peeked inside my Playlist titled "The SunFoil Project..." (?).
About 14 years ago my car was killing Batteries, which turned out to be due to my average engine run-time (6 & 1/2 minutes, living 15 km out of town...) was insufficient to finish recharging the Battery before I switched off the engine when I arrived home..., after which the part flat battery would sit- self-discharging and sulphating it's plates for a few dayze - waiting for me to come and suck Current out to run it's Starter Motor, and go out to repeat the procedure.
Therefore, an Aerofoil which runs on Sunlight, a streamlined Solar Array on the Roof..., with a Solar Battery Charge Controller wired to the battery - OUTSIDE the Ignition Switch, turned out to fix the issue.
And, then some...
A 5-Watt omnidirectional array, on a Subaru 1800 Touring Wagon, it turned out, saved 1.5 litres of fuel per week (!), so I put a 20 watt unit on my son's Subaru Brumby (same engine, gearbox, wheels, and closely comparable weight)..., and that saved 4 litres per week ; and the 30 Watt Mk-3 on my Touring Wagon saved 5.6 litres per week, and all of a sudden Acceleration was vastly better, and it no longer took 3rd gear to go up mild hills in town in a 40-Km/Hr Zone - even with half a ton of Firewood in the back..., 40 klicks up the hills in 4th gear.
The explanation is that, at full output, the 50 Amp Alternator (1 Hp at 14 Volts...) might be 80-85% efficient IF it's turning at 4,000 - 6,000 RPM, but at any other RPM it will be likely to be somewhere like 50% efficient...; so the 1 Hp output requires 2 Hp going into the Driven Pulley - and at 2.5 : 1 Step-Up Ratio that requires 5 Hp worth of Twisties out of the Cranking of the Shaft, to drive the Alternator's Rotor - and then the Belt will slip a bit, it and the Pulleys heat up and dump their heat into the Airflow - and thus a part-flat Battery drastically increases Fuelburn and seriously decreases the Torque available going from the Engine to the Gearbox - or Propeller in an Aircraft.
My underconstumbling is that Aircraft Alternators only run at 1.5 x Crankshaft Speed due to most operations involving most engine runtime being at pretty close to 3,000 RPM...
I don't know what Belt Drive ratio the Air Conditioner runs at..., but if the Air-Con. was on full Refrigeration and the Aircraft's Battery was sufficiently discharged as to be sucking hard on the Alternator...; then the reduction in available Torque arriving at the Throttle, therefrom, would probably account for perhaps 10 or 15% less than whatever would have been available - if the Aircraft had have had a Solar Charger (set up with a small Panel under the Windscreen, while tied down at the Airport, maybe ?) ensuring that the Alternator was adding no Electromagnetic Drag to the Crankshaft after Engine-Start...(because the Full Battery would outvolt the Alternator's Regulator...), and if the Air-Conditioning was disengaged.
Believe it or not, my daughter created this Channel 11 years ago and bookmarked it onto my prepaid mobile phone, specifically so I could make Videos about the results of the SunFoil Project, and publicise the idea.
Hoping to nudge the rest of you 8 billion to retrofit your Road Vehicles with SunFoils - DIY if neccessary, to enable y'-alls to save Fuel and thus generate less Tailpipe Emissions.
The savings vary, depending on each vehicle's Electrical System, and normal driving Regieme, but the lowest fuelburn reduction observed has been 5% and the greatest was 35%, with 20% being about average - and with a SunFoil on the vehicle a new Battery lasts 7 years in service and then suddenly dies absolutely, without warning.
So, there are now about 50 SunFoil Copycat Samizdat DIY retrofits getting around my hometown...; and my son, the town's Auto Electrician, has let DaddyWarbles put SunFoils on his personal vehicle - twice, and he's put 4 of them atop the Toolboxes of his 5-ton 4-WD Workshop Truck.
So, feel free to look long and hard at the Fuel Bowser, and the roof of your Car - and I recommend a Mk-7 or Mk-8 ; all the Construction Videos are in my Playlist.
Then, think about your Aircraft Batteries...; switching off the Aircon. is easy - and retrofitting a Solar Trickle Charger will prevent failed takeoffs arising from flat Batteries causing crippling Alternator Drag sapping critical amounts of Torque on Takeoff.
Sorry about the long warble - but this issue has been a personal "Hobbyhorse" for a dozen years...(!).
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
It's the definition of....
It sounds like he didn't even follow the checklist.
Ha
Scott you really got them fired up with this one. 😆
I know flight safety is a serious matter but man this comment sec so much 🤯😡
🤣
1-800- go see a therapist.
Some pilots with eggshell skin in here. You’d think they crashed their own airplane or something with the way they are responding to a video commentary about an accident.
Karma has a way of working these things out.
Hmmmm engine doesn’t seem to be running well. Probably just needs some more taxi time. Let’s taxi back and try it again. Unreal. These guys have no idea how close they were to being another one of the statistics our aviation community has seen so many of in the recent past. As a captain of even high performance business/charter aircraft we’ve put more emphasis on these procedures lately so that certainly means the GA community should be. The other one that really got me (besides my first comment) was taking off with the air conditioning/pressurization on. I’ve owned several air conditioned pistons....P210s, 340s, 421s, Cirrus and I cannot emphasize enough how much power this draws. It is SIGNIFICANT. Hell, as I recall even a couple Lear and Falcon models of business jets require it to be off for takeoff and even some for landing. Preventable people....100% preventable. Thanks Scott, well done once again.
Scott, is the Bonanza too difficult an airplane for a GA pilot to fly?
Not at all. The Bonanza is a great airplane, very capable. But it is fast and speed adds a dimension that some find hard to adapt to.
While the takeaways from the video are great (use a checklist, don't try to limp the plane back to the runway), almost none of the information in the video about the accident flight is accurate.
I'm not surprised by that fact, because neither the pilot, passengers, mechanic, nor owner was contacted prior to the release of the video. But the fact remains that, as it relates to the accident flight, most of this information is incorrect. It's all based on speculation and post hoc observations from people who likely have no experience in the aircraft in question.
I have no issue with people trying to glean lessons from accidents and mistakes, and there are several of them that can be learned from this one. Maybe we'll talk about it someday.
But if I can just encourage those who might be inclined to make CZcams videos about stuff like this: let's make sure we have enough information to accurately draw conclusions. Especially when things are new enough that the wreckage hasn't even been removed.
Defend yourself by addressing specifics. A blanket accusation is BS. I talked with the first responder who was at the scene and he verified the switches were both on for the AC. He is an experienced pilot. Unfortunately, he knows what the switches are for.
Thanks for watching. Try for specifics next time.
@@FlyWirescottperdue Scott, all due respect, I don’t have to defend myself. I wasn’t the pilot, and I’m not the one making claims about what caused an accident.
The specifics are not available to the public yet. That’s my point. Unless you have specific information (read: data), assumptions can lead to wrong conclusions.
I don’t know what your first responder friend saw, but eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable - experienced pilot or not. What matters in situations like this is *data*. The engine monitor data in this case would be incredibly important to have before being able to confidently conclude that there was a power loss.
You state that "almost none of the information ... is accurate"? First..how do you know it is innacurate? Have YOU talked to the pilot to back YOUR claim up? Nope..you havent.. For the record Scott always goes to great lengths to clearly say how he gets his information, and clearly says multiple times that his analysis is speculative when he feels it is and when it is based on facts, he states that too. Scott leaves it to the viewer to take away what they want. He is making great videos that detail lessons to be learned with the limited info available... in this videos case...better than no analysis on the crash. Super lame post on so many levels.
“Pur-don’t” know what he’s talking about; once again. This is basically click bait - what snake oil are you selling now?
@@EricSimoneau It was my airplane, I was in the backseat on the accident flight, and I have the engine monitor data.
That’s how I know.
Foff
Question: what evidence do you have that supports the claim that the aircraft wasn't making full power? Seems like this notion is what the entire video rests on.
Have you flown this aircraft before? I have. I've flown N7361K approximately 10x.
Also, lots of assumptions regarding "what the pilot was thinking at the time", but it appears you haven't interviewed any of the individuals on board. Lots of comments about PICs mindset, but I haven't heard where you've spoken to the PIC.
Lots of hearsay regarding the aborted takeoff as well. Appears you've left off that there were adjustments made to the engine after the aborted take off, yet prior to the accident flight.
Also, the air conditioning in that aircraft has (2) switches which must be on for the air conditioning to work. We're BOTH of those verified to be in the ON position? Sounds like someone that didn't know the aircraft (or the systems) wanted to be the news reporter and started talking about things they aren't knowledgeable about...
Nice try my friend. Given the position of the airplane and time in the air it’s not hard to figure out what happened.
The first responder I talked with noted both switches on… he is an experienced pilot and knows what he is talking about. The people in the airplane told him what happened right after the accident. Probably didn’t have time to get their stories together. Hearsay… I heard it from a witness on the scene right after it happened.
Believe what you like. I suggest you grind your axe somewhere else.
@@FlyWirescottperdue nah, I look forward to you being proved wrong.
Matter of fact, I'll wager $2,500 your "facts" aren't anywhere to be found when the NTSB report comes out.
If what you say is true, that's worse! I'm not taking a full load of people up in my plane after I had to abort a takeoff and make 'adjustments' to the engine.. The first flight after adjustments needs to be a test flight especially if the thing wasn't making power.
I guess we can wait for the NTSB, Scott can put his money away and by the time it comes out he can pay you with the interest since it will take that long...
Why do you even care John? Everyone responding is acting like they were attacked by the Scot guy.
@@cullenstagg I know the people involved in this accident, and he is grossly misrepresenting all of the facts for his own glory. It's absurd!
Nothing you stated was correct. I know all involved and have seen data you are not privy to. The fact you have come on here with “heresay” is pretty bad in your part. I will not comment as to what i know as this is an ongoing investigation but i would HIGHLY suggest you delete this video.
Funny, I read the docket documents and I get a different picture than you accuse me of. Thanks for watching though.
Delete the video? Scott’s report matches NTSB docket. Can I offer you a free hat from Scott?
Final report is out. Care to comment?