AirTalk.org Aviation discussions newsgroups   Archives   FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  Is it just me that thinks this was stupid          AirTalk.org Forum Index -> Aviators (General Discussions) View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Bravo Two Zero Guest Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:12 am    Post subject: Is it just me that thinks this was stupid A small plane crashed into Lake Pleasant, just outside of Phoenix, at approx 8pm Friday, while the pilot was reportedly talking on his cellphone and flying 10 feet above the water. According to thr FAA, the pilot was talking on a cellphone to a friend in a boat below and asked the friend to shine a flashlight in the air to signal the boat's location. Back to top John Clear Guest Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 4:42 am    Post subject: Re: Is it just me that thinks this was stupid In article <orfairbairn-163705.23252514052007 (AT) news (DOT) west.earthlink.net>, Orval Fairbairn <orfairbairn (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote: Quote: I recall the story -- happened about 50 years ago. The Stratocruiser lost 2 engines, IIRC, and descended (power glided) to about 1/2 wingspan of the water and was able to fly to land in surface effect. They obviously did not descend immediately, rather they did a max L/D powered descent until they stopped losing altitude. It was written up in an old "Reader's Digest," among others. This sounds like the Ernest Gann novel 'The High and the Mighty' which was also made into a movie of the same name, starring John Wayne and Robert Stack. Halfway between Hawaii and San Francisco, they lose an engine which sheds parts and punctures the fuel tanks on that wing. The movie was unavailable for years due to a dispute with Wayne's estate, but has recently become available. I watched it last year, and it is very well done, and the inspiration for all the other aviation disaster flicks. John -- John Clear - jac (AT) panix (DOT) com http://www.clear-prop.org/ Back to top John Clear Guest Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 5:30 am    Post subject: Re: Is it just me that thinks this was stupid In article <-I6dnS5iddxdo9TbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d (AT) rcn (DOT) net>, Dudley Henriques <dhenriques (AT) rcn (DOT) com> wrote: Quote: If I remember right, in that movie the bird was a DC6 and I think they stayed at altitude until approach with a normal enroute altitude profile. The big rub was the ongoing interaction between the right and left seats on whether to ditch in the sea under power with the remaining fuel or try for the approach and take a chance the engines would quit. I remember them dumping everything they could overboard since they couldn't maintain altitude, and then arguments over running flat out as far as possible, or leaning aggressively. I don't remember them in ground effect, except for barely clearing Portola Ridge on approach into San Francisco. John -- John Clear - jac (AT) panix (DOT) com http://www.clear-prop.org/ Back to top Orval Fairbairn Guest Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 6:13 am    Post subject: Re: Is it just me that thinks this was stupid In article <46490db1$1 (AT) news (DOT) auckland.ac.nz>, DR <farr1220 (AT) excite (DOT) com> wrote: Quote: Dudley Henriques wrote: "Blanche" <bcohen (AT) blackhole (DOT) nyx.net> wrote in message news:1179155311.423131 (AT) irys (DOT) nyx.net... On 5/14/2007 2:03:24 AM, "Bravo Two Zero" wrote: A small plane crashed into Lake Pleasant, just outside of Phoenix, at approx 8pm Friday, while the pilot was reportedly talking on his cellphone and flying 10 feet above the water. Can you have "ground effect" over water? There's a great story about the crew of a Pan Am Stratocruiser I think it was, who were low on fuel and a long way out over the ocean. They let down to within a wingspan's distance over the water, leaned it back a ton, played with the RPM, and made it home. Can't remember the source of the story, but I do remember reading it a long time ago. Dudley Henriques Maybe a true story but I think the the odds are they would have been much better off at high altitude. As I understand it, induced drag is only reduced by 10% at 50% of wing span above surface. At 20% of wing span altitude the drag is still ~70% (Surface skimming birds actually go lower, nearly touching the water with their wing tips). Of course if the Stratocourser dropped to say 10' it could have worked better... -kersplash! Cheers MarkC I recall the story -- happened about 50 years ago. The Stratocruiser lost 2 engines, IIRC, and descended (power glided) to about 1/2 wingspan of the water and was able to fly to land in surface effect. They obviously did not descend immediately, rather they did a max L/D powered descent until they stopped losing altitude. It was written up in an old "Reader's Digest," among others. Back to top Dudley Henriques Guest Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 6:13 am    Post subject: Re: Is it just me that thinks this was stupid "Jose" <teacherjh (AT) aol (DOT) nospam.com> wrote in message news:W092i.3609$mR2.1454 (AT) newssvr22 (DOT) news.prodigy.net... Quote: If I remember right, nobody reporting on the incident reflected on what they might have done, only on what they actually did. They very well might have optimized range at altitude. Maybe they couldn't get to altitude. I sure wish I could remember the specifics but it's all a big fuzzball. I remember seeing the story but don't remember much about the specifics, and that's where the answer will be I'm sure. Through the fog I seem to remember something about not wanting to do the climb because of the fuel remaining and that being a factor in their decision. Knowing the gang on this forum, I'll bet someone finds the answer before this thread is finished ) Dudley Henriques Back to top Capt.Doug Guest Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 6:13 am    Post subject: Re: Is it just me that thinks this was stupid Quote: "Dudley Henriques" wrote in message > A lot would depend on what you had to expend in resources to get up there from where you were when the decision had to be made . Not sure at all what the circumstances were in this incident. Speaking strictly of recips, would max range differ with altitude? The late great Max Karant had the answer in his Twin Comanche. D. Back to top Dudley Henriques Guest Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 6:13 am    Post subject: Re: Is it just me that thinks this was stupid "John Clear" <usenet (AT) jac (DOT) users.panix.com> wrote in message news:f2bdmo$il4$1 (AT) reader2 (DOT) panix.com... Quote: In article <orfairbairn-163705.23252514052007 (AT) news (DOT) west.earthlink.net>, Orval Fairbairn <orfairbairn (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote: I recall the story -- happened about 50 years ago. The Stratocruiser lost 2 engines, IIRC, and descended (power glided) to about 1/2 wingspan of the water and was able to fly to land in surface effect. They obviously did not descend immediately, rather they did a max L/D powered descent until they stopped losing altitude. It was written up in an old "Reader's Digest," among others. This sounds like the Ernest Gann novel 'The High and the Mighty' which was also made into a movie of the same name, starring John Wayne and Robert Stack. Halfway between Hawaii and San Francisco, they lose an engine which sheds parts and punctures the fuel tanks on that wing. The movie was unavailable for years due to a dispute with Wayne's estate, but has recently become available. I watched it last year, and it is very well done, and the inspiration for all the other aviation disaster flicks. John -- John Clear - jac (AT) panix (DOT) com http://www.clear-prop.org/ If I remember right, in that movie the bird was a DC6 and I think they stayed at altitude until approach with a normal enroute altitude profile. The big rub was the ongoing interaction between the right and left seats on whether to ditch in the sea under power with the remaining fuel or try for the approach and take a chance the engines would quit. Poor Lennie the navigator screwed up his winds and made the problem a bit more interesting, but I don't recall them leaving their assigned altitude enroute to take a shot at ground effect. Great movie though. Wonderful sub-plots with Alexis Smith and David Brian and the other regulars. You have to love the Duke! Poor Robert Stack. With an engine hanging off the wing, raw fuel pouring out all over the place, the passengers yelling and screaming in the back that they're all going to die, solid IFR, on vectors to the FAF with nothing but the city below him and the fuel gauges on empty, the Duke, who KNOWS that unusable fuel just MIGHT be usable, slaps him in the puss and hollers, "Shut up and fly!" Ah...the movies!!! Great Stuff!! ) Dudley Henriques Back to top Jose Guest Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 6:13 am    Post subject: Re: Is it just me that thinks this was stupid Quote: If I remember right, nobody reporting on the incident reflected on what they might have done, only on what they actually did. They very well might have optimized range at altitude. Maybe they couldn't get to altitude. Jose -- Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe, except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. Back to top Dudley Henriques Guest Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 6:13 am    Post subject: Re: Is it just me that thinks this was stupid Dave Esser did a great article on this at ER. http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:dh0cvu-Z2Z8J:www.erau.edu/er/newsmedia/articles/wp7.html+maximum+range+vs+altitude&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us Wasn't Karant's Twin Commanche lost in a fire somewhere? DH "Capt.Doug" <Capt.Doug (AT) theatt (DOT) net> wrote in message news:nYa2i.18706$yM2.13624@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... Quote: "Dudley Henriques" wrote in message > A lot would depend on what you had to expend in resources to get up there from where you were when the decision had to be made . Not sure at all what the circumstances were in this incident. Speaking strictly of recips, would max range differ with altitude? The late great Max Karant had the answer in his Twin Comanche. D. Back to top Dudley Henriques Guest Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 6:12 am    Post subject: Re: Is it just me that thinks this was stupid Many years ago when I was working a field in Maryland as a CFI, I'd sometimes come back to the field late at night during the summer months and just walk the runway all alone sometimes. It was a great time to think; complete solitude and silence. It was also a great way to check the runway for anything loose that might cause a safety problem in the morning. Dudley Henriques "Montblack" <Y4_NOT!...4monty4blacky (AT) yyvisyyiy (DOT) comy> wrote in message news:134kurd9m7mgk8c (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com... Quote: ("Dudley Henriques" wrote) I remember one that started with "What's the concrete mix ratio for concrete runways please?" and finished about 80 posts later with "Picking a good CFI is the first decision you make as a pilot that has to be right" I attended the "Open House" for Runway 17/35 at MSP two years ago. We got to walk out on the runway, see some jets (up close), look at lots of big airport equipment, visit 20(?) different contractor tent-booths, listen to a band, ...the usual stuff. <g They had a cut-a-way model section of the new runway - no rebar. Project manager said that they don't use rebar when building new runways - at least not in Minnesota, I guess. http://www.mspairport.com/msp/expansion/airfield/runway_17_35.aspx The Mall of America is at the top of the pic @ 12:30 That's the Minnesota River, behind the MoA. It connects up with the Mississippi River, downstream, another two miles. Montblack MoA is the former site of Metropolitan Stadium (Twins, Vikings) and Met Center (MN North Stars) Back to top Montblack Guest Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 6:12 am    Post subject: Re: Is it just me that thinks this was stupid ("Dudley Henriques" wrote) Quote: I remember one that started with "What's the concrete mix ratio for concrete runways please?" and finished about 80 posts later with "Picking a good CFI is the first decision you make as a pilot that has to be right" I attended the "Open House" for Runway 17/35 at MSP two years ago. We got to walk out on the runway, see some jets (up close), look at lots of big airport equipment, visit 20(?) different contractor tent-booths, listen to a band, ...the usual stuff. <g> They had a cut-a-way model section of the new runway - no rebar. Project manager said that they don't use rebar when building new runways - at least not in Minnesota, I guess. http://www.mspairport.com/msp/expansion/airfield/runway_17_35.aspx The Mall of America is at the top of the pic @ 12:30 That's the Minnesota River, behind the MoA. It connects up with the Mississippi River, downstream, another two miles. Montblack MoA is the former site of Metropolitan Stadium (Twins, Vikings) and Met Center (MN North Stars) Back to top Montblack Guest Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 6:12 am    Post subject: Re: Is it just me that thinks this was stupid ("Richard Riley" wrote) Quote: Right author, wrong book. "The High and the Mighty." But in the book (and movie, IIRC) they're in a DC-4, and it's based on a true story. BTW ....add the ")" after (film), when using the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_and_the_Mighty_(film) (From Wiki... ) The aircraft (N4726V) The DC-4 aircraft used to film the tarmac, passenger boarding (Gate 4), take-off and external daylight flying sequences was a C-54A-10-DC (c/n 10315) built in 1942 at Long Beach, California by the Douglas Aircraft Company under military contract for the USAAF (s/n 42-72210). When its sequences for the film were shot in mid November 1953 the aircraft (N4726V, formerly N66694 and LV-ABR) was being operated by Transocean Airlines (1946-62), an Oakland, California-based non-scheduled carrier and the largest civil aviation operator of recycled C-54 aircraft during the 1950s. Novel and screenplay author Ernest K. Gann had written the original book when he was flying C-54s for Transocean over the Hawaii-California routes. Named The Argentine Queen, the plane had once been the personal aircraft of Juan Perón (the controversial three-time President of Argentina) before it was acquired by Transocean in 1953. The film's fictional airline's name (TOPAC) was integrated with Transocean's red, white, and yellow color scheme for filming. A second Transocean C-54/DC-4 (equipped with a large double door to accommodate the loading of freight on pallets) was used to film the scenes of the damaged plane on the ground at the end of the film, while the external night and damaged "in-flight" sequences were filmed in a studio using a large miniature. Scenes inside the passenger cabin and on the flight deck were filmed on sets built on a sound stage. True life end of N4726V At 8:47 PM (HST) on March 27, 1964 N4726V took off on a charter flight from Honolulu to Los Angeles with a crew of three and six passengers onboard. A little before 6AM (PST), about eight hours into the anticipated 11 hour, 40 minute flight, a Mayday call was heard from the pilot, who reported his position as about 700 miles west of San Francisco with a serious fire in engine #2 (left inboard) adding, "...we may have to put it in" (ditching the aircraft in the ocean might be necessary). No further transmissions were heard from the plane. The Coast Guard searched for five days but no traces of the aircraft or its occupants were ever found. Later investigation showed that engine #2 had a recurring oil leak in its propeller governor assembly, but the fire's cause remained unknown. Many writers have commented on the ironic similarities between the plane's role in the film and its tragic end over the Pacific. Montblack Back to top C J Campbell Guest Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 6:12 am    Post subject: Re: Is it just me that thinks this was stupid On 2007-05-13 23:03:21 -0700, "Bravo Two Zero" <B2Zero (AT) gmail (DOT) com> said: Quote: A small plane crashed into Lake Pleasant, just outside of Phoenix, at approx 8pm Friday, while the pilot was reportedly talking on his cellphone and flying 10 feet above the water. According to thr FAA, the pilot was talking on a cellphone to a friend in a boat below and asked the friend to shine a flashlight in the air to signal the boat's location. It appears there were two people on board. We don't know the facts, such as whether it was the pilot or the passenger who was talking on the phone, whether both were pilots, or even the actual altitude. What a reporter says he heard from the FAA is at best third hand information. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor Back to top C J Campbell Guest Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 6:12 am    Post subject: Re: Is it just me that thinks this was stupid On 2007-05-14 08:08:31 -0700, Blanche <bcohen (AT) blackhole (DOT) nyx.net> said: Quote: On 5/14/2007 2:03:24 AM, "Bravo Two Zero" wrote: A small plane crashed into Lake Pleasant, just outside of Phoenix, at approx 8pm Friday, while the pilot was reportedly talking on his cellphone and flying 10 feet above the water. Can you have "ground effect" over water? Used to be a common fuel saving strategy for long over-water flights. You could on a C-130, for example, kill two engines, descend to ground effect, and increase your range and/or endurance dramatically. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         AirTalk.org Forum Index -> Aviators (General Discussions) All times are GMT Page 1 of 1   Jump to: Select a forum Aviation----------------alt.aviationAviation safety EnhancementPlanes, gliders and flying in AustraliaAviation et pilotage (Français)rec.aviationAviation (Aerobatics)Hot air, gas balloons and airshipsHang-gliding, paragliding, foot-launched flightAircraft Design & BuildingInstrument Flight RulesAviation (Classifieds)Military AircraftNaval AviationAviation (Miscellaneous Topics)Owning AirplanesAviators (General Discussions)Aviation related productsAircraft RestorationHelicopters and rotary wing aircraftsFlight SimulationSailplanesAviation (Students)Light aircraftFlying related activities in the UK Airports----------------alt.airportsEdinburgh Airport Glasgow Airport Humberside Airport Luton Airport Aberdeen Airport Glasgow Prestwick Airport  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2006 phpBB Group SEO toolkit © 2004-2006 webmedic.