flyerme Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 [medio=full]285[/medio] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Bellanca wood wing..looked like it was ready to stall and drop a wing all the way down, he should have put a bit of foward trim into it. Didn't really fly the plane, and very lucky it didn't drop it's nose or a wing. An uncontrolled crash really, in as much as there wasn't an excuted flare prior to impact with the water........Lucky......................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 They were really lucky that there was the water and only 4ft deep. At that rate of descent if it was hard ground I don't think they would have fared so well...good positioning and flying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Ouch! Very lucky outcome. Water can be like concrete. Its only advantage over dry land is that it's level. Fixed u/c digs into water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Ouch! Very lucky outcome. Water can be like concrete. Its only advantage over dry land is that it's level. Fixed u/c digs into water. The aircraft had retracts so a water landing in that situation i.e. trees all around, campers all around, undercarriage retracted makes the water, in my opinion the best option and especially the way he was able to just plonk it in the right spot, close to the shore etc and instead of flying it in, plonk it in a manner that was at very low speed, gave it a great outcome for all. It is possible that he was trying to do just this which would explain the tooing and swaying of the aircraft when he was bringing it in as he wouldn't have been able to have kept sight of the exact spot that well being a low wing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultralights Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Good spot to ditch, sadly very uncontrolled, looks like he held it in the stall for the last 100 ft. Very lucky to land flat and not have it enter a spin or rapidly drop the nose. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 The aircraft had retracts so a water landing in that situation i.e. trees all around, campers all around, undercarriage retracted makes the water, in my opinion the best option and especially the way he was able to just plonk it in the right spot, close to the shore etc and instead of flying it in, plonk it in a manner that was at very low speed, gave it a great outcome for all. It is possible that he was trying to do just this which would explain the tooing and swaying of the aircraft when he was bringing it in as he wouldn't have been able to have kept sight of the exact spot that well being a low wing I fully agree. Looks like he did a great job of getting over tall trees and dropping it onto some shallow water near the shore. Having wheels up helped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 ..looked like it was ready to stall and drop a wing all the way down, he should have put a bit of foward trim into it. Didn't really fly the plane, and very lucky it didn't drop it's nose or a wing. An uncontrolled crash really, in as much as there wasn't an excuted flare prior to impact with the water........Lucky......................Maj... I'd say he was a skilled pilot and it was stalled, wasn't 'ready to drop a wing', he shouldn't have added forward trim, he did fly the plane (very well) and luck wasn't involved. It was a controlled crash, skillfully executed and it wasn't possible to execute a flare, stick would've already been full back. ..... which would explain the tooing and swaying of the aircraft when he was bringing it in as he wouldn't have been able to have kept sight of the exact spot that well being a low wing Yes, hard to see the approach point but he got it over the trees and onto the water at min speed. ... sadly very uncontrolled, looks like he held it in the stall for the last 100 ft. Very lucky to land flat and not have it enter a spin or rapidly drop the nose. No, very controlled I think, but yes in the stall. Not lucky to avoid the spin, skilfully avoided the spin. The manoeuvre was the 'falling leaf', fully stalled and properly executed will never develop into a spin, probably his best option in the circumstances and very well executed. See a thread I began yesterday 13/01/13 called Turn Smart where a very experienced ag pilot demonstrates and explains the falling leaf, it can be a lifesaver in some situations. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tex Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Not so skilful IMO assuming he was trying to hold it in a stall, that was the wrong state to have the aircraft in ... BEST GLIDE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Not so skilful IMO assuming he was trying to hold it in a stall, that was the wrong state to have the aircraft in ... BEST GLIDE! Well, that's assuming you know what his intentions were, if he was already assured of making it over the trees and to the water's edge then he would've been setting up for BEST DITCH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tex Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Yes of course we can only assume... he only just made it over the trees and was never assured of that the way the aircraft was flown, at incipient spin most of the way and 'best ditch' would be at lowest sink rate rate ... I think he just got lucky whether he intended to have the aircraft in the state it was or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Yes of course we can only assume... he only just made it over the trees and was never assured of that they way the aircraft was flown, at incipient spin most of the way and 'best ditch' would be at lowest sink rate rate ... I think he just got lucky whether he intended to have the aircraft in the state it was or not. Sure, it's all conjecture and I was just putting the point forward that he may in fact have been a skillful pilot rather than the 'idiot' that everyone likes to assume a pilot is whenever there's a crash. We're all subject to engine failure at any time, and it's quite possible that this bloke knew exactly what he was doing. We didn't see the earlier part when he might have been gliding at best L/D, and he did execute a perfect falling leaf which is the safest way to mush an aircraft onto water. Incidentally, regarding ditching. It's generally held that the best ditch is the one with the least speed rather than the one with the least descent rate and the least speed is achieved in a zoom stall and tailslide or a falling leaf. The zoom stall is filled with danger of getting the timing minutely wrong, the falling leaf is completely predictable if you've practiced it regularly. From your avatar it looks like you have a Drifter, I did too, for many years, properly rigged the Drifter does the falling leaf beautifully and very stably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tex Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Yeh maybe he was a very skilled pilot, and I don't think he was an idiot. I think he was doing what many pilots would do... pulling the stick back hoping that will make him stay airborne longer, I dare say he was pedalling like a Tour de France contestant to keep it out of a spin. How does a fully stalled aircraft (which I understand this 'falling leaf' to be) achieve min sink? Min sink is never achieved in a stall. One thing I cannot reconcile with this falling leaf theory: right at stall is when you want the aircraft to touch down... the falling leaf part is just a deep stall uncorrected or purposefully maintained. Entering the stall just (immediately) before you ditched would give you less sink rate than a fully developed and continuing deep stall. Interesting discussion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 How does a fully stalled aircraft (which I understand this 'falling leaf' to be) achieve min sink? Min sink is never achieved in a stall. One thing I cannot reconcile with this falling leaf theory: right at stall is when you want the aircraft to touch down... the falling leaf part is just a deep stall uncorrected or purposefully maintained. Entering the stall just (immediately) before you ditched would give you less sink rate than a fully developed and continuing deep stall. Interesting discussion It sure is interesting stuff Tex, and mighty useful to have discussed it before ever being in a position where you might need to use it. The point is minimum speed not minimum sink. Say the plane stalls at 50kts which would be about right for that Bellanca in the video. Then the best L/D would be about 67kts, so if he approached the water at 67kts and then tried to stall it on he'd hit the water at a bit over 50kts probably and most of it would be forward velocity so unless he was both lucky and skillful he'd probably flip and that's really bad stuff on the water, worse than on land I'd say - in that plane anyway. In the falling leaf he'd be stabilised with about 40kts forward speed and maybe 20kts descent rate, sounds worse than say 52kts forward speed but if you measure the vector it's actually 44kts. But the main thing is that you're not likely to flip over, and it's completely controlled. At the end of the day this guy and his pax all got out of it and that's not always the case in ditchings. Certainly there's some descent rate involved and in that event having seats with energy absorption or stroking design would be a consideration in the kind of water arrival you might choose. Something else to consider here - it's also possible that he may not have thought he'd clear the trees and if I was going into trees I'd rather do it in a mush than stalling onto the top of them with more forward speed, but that's another call that could change on the day, tree density etc. Have you had a look at the vid I mentioned - Turn Smart? Also see the one I posted today which involves great footage of a crash into trees filmed from inside the plane, the thread's called "To crash or not to crash..." Cheers, Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tex Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Then entering deep stall or 'falling leaf' higher than normal flare/stall, 10'.. 20'? would produce the same result and and maintaining best L/D or min sink before then would give you more options given you have no aileron in falling leaf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Then entering deep stall or 'falling leaf' higher than normal flare/stall, 10'.. 20'? would produce the same result and and maintaining best L/D or min sink before then would give you more options given you have no aileron in falling leaf. Perhaps, in the case in the video maybe he felt his way got him to the shallow water reliably, you don't need best glide if you're not trying to go anywhere... Anyway, there's no hard and fast rule because there are so many variables not least of which is the aircraft type/configuration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Nasty!!!.. I would disagree it was a controlled "falling leaf" manourvre. The wing was certainly stalled the entire time in an apparent attempt to keep it away from the trees, a falling leaf move wouldnt look anything like that if it was controlled properly. I suspect it is as it seems, a desperate attempt to keep the aeroplane flying despite gravity having other ideas. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultralights Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 A forced landing approach, flare and touchdown, no matter where it is, should look exactly like any other normal controlled landing... that was not a normal controlled landing... could you image every landing like that? aircraft would be a single use item. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 I doubt if that pilot would know what a falling leaf manouver was..even if you asked him post accident ! And whos' ever seen one done ?...I have, and it was nothing like that !... He was doing one of the big no nos in that situation..stretching the glide. An aircraft about to stall and drop a wing will do just what this one was doing, rocking it's wings..no skill involved there. Damn lucky it didn't stall and spin, and a credit I feel to the fine wing that the Bellancas have. Not a controlled arrival in no shape or form !...and they were just lucky they survived..What's the first thing ?...FLY THE AIRCRAFT....sorry but he wasn't..........................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 I think he was pre-occupied with not hitting the tree tops and ran out of airspeed doing that. It then pretty much fell out of the sky as it was too slow to do anything else. The water would be pretty hard at that sink rate,but there was no energy left. If he had lowered the nose the airspeed increase would have been insignificant and he would have probably had a higher ROD and a lower nose attitude, and buried the nose even more, in the water.. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultralights Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Falling leaf manoeuver involves a high rate of descent, far greater than he had there. and angles of bank almost if not to 90 deg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 I've been trained to do a falling leaf and I agree that it wasn't one . Just lateral instability due low speed though I havent examined the rudder movements in detail. Also why would he want to do a manoeuver that loses height, more than slow flight? Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Alright, I stand corrected, I was just hopeful he was doing something clever instead of the total mismanagement that it had to be if he wasn't... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Gather round kids !..and I'll tell ya a story !!!........... During the Viet Nam era (early 70s) I was based at RAAF Richmond NSW (2AD, 486 Sqn Hercs). Occasionally crazy yank pilots would rest up there on their way back Stateside, after hitching rides in the C-141 Starlifters that would stage through there. Some of these big yanks were on their third fighter tour in Nam, many had several 'hundred missions' patches on their worn suits, (F-4s, F100s) and some had several ejections under their belts, after having lost encounters with Sam missiles. Most had flat-top crewcuts that you could have landed a Robbo on !...It took them a couple of days (or a trip to the cross !) to really relax, and get chatty...you could tell they had seen some serious action. They liked to fly the Australian jets also, if they could actually fit into them !....Some physically couldn't operate the Mirage safely because of their bulk...or eject safely if they had to. But they could fit ok into the F-86 Sabre as it was a US aircraft. At times we would get alerted that something was about to happen, which was the signal to down tools and walk out onto the tarmac. Above us this day and alarmingly low, (hundreds, not thousands of feet!) was an F-86 Sabre performing a full 'falling leaf' manouver. I'd never seen anything like it before ..or since !...He was directly overhead and I was convinced he had stuffed up bigtime, and that we all were going to die. The power was at idle and everything was hanging out, as he performed this extreme manouver 'the falling leaf'....as the aircraft gracefully went from side to side.. Then the nose went right down almost vertical, the power came back in bigtime, and the aircraft recovered and flew away not 400 Ft above us, and the tarmac. I still have this vivid memory looking straight up the intake as he went vertical, with the single landing light fully lit on the nose leg. That folks was a falling leaf !!!...and a fully controlled one at that.................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 With the sweepback on the wings, I'd be surprised if he didn't get some kind of dutch roll which can put you straight over in one hit in a lot of fast planes. Any Sabre pilots out there? Ours would have had Avons in them, supposedly better performers. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now