jamel Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/flying-school-plane-ditches-in-creek-near-murray-bridge-aerodrome-occupants-lucky-to-escape-injury/story-fni6uo1m-1226866483398 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJS71 Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Sorry to hear an aircraft has gone down...great to hear no serious injuries have been reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickduncs84 Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 I was doing circuits at the time. The article incorrectly stated that the plane belong to murray bridge light aircraft flying school. they have 3 jabirus only, one of which I was in. The plane that came down was a GA plane. was about 500m short of runway 20. Almost made it back! Airfield is surrounded by flat paddocks so a pretty safe place to have to put it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PA. Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Mike will be happy it wasn't one of his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camel Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 I looked at the article and was bewildered by the wheel under the fuse, I looked up the aircraft reg and was intrigued by this plane and it has been around a while and has some history, seems like a very advanced plane for its time. I enjoyed seeing the history and thought worthy of sharing. Hope it's flying again soon, glad no one was hurt. http://www.edcoatescollection.com/ac1/austcl/VH-DUT.html http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1969/aair/aair196900026.aspx http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=158275 http://www.goodall.com.au/australian-aviation/metasokol/czlmetasokol.pdf Airframe Year of Manufacture:1962 Country of Manufacture:CZECH REPUBLIC First Registered Date:12 August 1993 Airframe:Power Driven Aeroplane Landing Gear:OTHER Engines No. Engines:1 Manufacturer:WALTER-MOTORLET NC Type:Piston Model:M332 Fuel:Gasoline Propeller Manufacturer:METALLIC FIXED PITCH PROPELLER - MANUFACT. & MODEL NOT IDENTIFIED Model:FIXED PITCH PROPELLER (FP) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Is it a Meta Sokol? Funny to hear the term "DITCHES" which applies to putting down in water. I guess these little matters will not count for anything over time. . I see one of the links says it is a sokol.. The Walter is an OK engine but it's not new anymore.Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamel Posted March 27, 2014 Author Share Posted March 27, 2014 Yeah, the first report has been changed somewhat, they initially said it was a flying school plane that had ditched in a creek!! Nice they have updated the article to correct it and put up a picture as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushcaddy105 Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Yes it is a Metasokol. I know the aircraft and have flown in it. It is classed as a tailwheeler, with the tailwheel under the centre fuselage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aj_richo Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Local Murray Bridge news has a couple of pics.. http://www.murrayvalleystandard.com.au/story/2180027/light-plane-crashes-into-paddock-at-pallamana/?cs=1275#slide=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Wonder why they didn't put the tail wheel at the back? How are you supposed to land that? Wheelers only? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PA. Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Saw it being towed this morning at the airport behind a four wheel drive. All of a sudden I had this desire for a Violet Crumble. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Tecky, they certainly are not stalled in that attitude. When they first came out (in the 60's) I had a good look at them. They have some strange features that seem OK but are not necessarily so. For instance, the ailerons elevators and rudder are the same part., and of course the 1/2 tailwheel. certainly wouldn't take the load of a full stick back landing, with ALL the weight on it. Having said that I can't recall any of them being involved in any disastrous events. There was probably no more than 6 here. They are a trainer. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 Tecky, they certainly are not stalled in that attitude. When they first came out (in the 60's) I had a good look at them. They have some strange features that seem OK but are not necessarily so. For instance, the ailerons elevators and rudder are the same part., and of course the 1/2 tailwheel. certainly wouldn't take the load of a full stick back landing, with ALL the weight on it. Having said that I can't recall any of them being involved in any disastrous events. There was probably no more than 6 here. They are a trainer. Nev Yes strange concept I would have thought that setup would be even more prone to ground looping than the conventional taildrager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 Quite a few single engined fighter planes WW2, are not much different. If the tailwheel is steerable it is certainly more close coupled. I honestly cannot remember even though I probably had a testflight. Most of my hours back then were on tailwheel planes, so unless it was really bad I probably would not have noticed. One thing I CAN recall is that the three pointer was the most commonly used technique. Doesn't appear so today, with things like the Tigermoth, Auster Chipmunk.etc.. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 I almost always do 3 pointers even in the Skyfox and Thruster which some reckon you should not do. I know someone who has owned a Skyfox for many years who was taught to do wheelers, in the last few years he has tipped it on its back twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 Maybe he doesn't do it correctly, or applies too much brake. I reckon the Skyfox is not easy. Probably the rudder is blanketed. I feel safer with the pupil(s) doing a wheeler certainly if it is a bit windy/gusty. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 I am not sure of the details but I think longer grass might have been a factor with at least one flip. You would want to be real careful using the brakes if the tail is not on the ground in my opinion. Each to their own with which landing to do but wheelers have resulted in quite a few flip overs with Skyfoxes. I like mine because I find it a challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotorwork Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 http://www.xdh.ca/L-40_Meta_Sokol/l-40_meta_sokol.html Above is a Link to a fair amount of Meta Sokol Information, Also link to ASN Database for Meta Sokol Accidents http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=L40 9 were sent to Australia, Regards R W VH - DEH; DUC; DUE; DUP; DUT; DUX; DUY; ENG; RCW 1 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