Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Having a genuine" beat myself up" moment. He's right though. It's his fault, and he knows it. Wrong technique for the conditions.. He's not hurt. The plane never got to any real speed and it will probably repair also and his darling still loves him. Seems like a nice sort of a bloke. No BuLL$#!t Nev.

 

 

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

just have to wait until after he is finished building scrappy,

 

and his next PT-6 powered race plane - which the engine is in his hangar for...

 

I think he said he already has the next 3-4 plane builds planned

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

He was really optimistic in opening up the power when you could see the wind was already lifting his left wing. Your ailerons are useless until you have probably 30-40 kts flowing over them.  He did mention 30 kt gusting winds, then calm, and looking into those storms in the background, plus the virga off higher storms in some early frames, I'd say he was a microburst victim. Really feel for him.  Many of us have had similar loss of directional control but been lucky to have sufficient speed to be able to fly away - albeit away from the strip - and lived to fight another day. One thing I noticed was that he was more worried about the 'tower' approval than making a 'safer' takeoff. The tower usually can't see whether you are taking off or landing 20-30 degrees 'accross' the runway, and wouldn't care, provided you didn't conflict with a parallel runway traffic.  Whatever it takes with high wing taildraggers!! 

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

was more then just a low-speed nosedive, the whole aircraft rolled

 

Ive seen video of Mike bouncing Draco off bumps to test the suspension (which has snapped off) it was built very tough,

everything re-enforced and machined from billet.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Yes, they are not designed to crash without damage.  (like  Jabiru??)   Plenty of airliners break in half in what looks like a fairly benign event (unless you are in it) . That one seems a bit brittle as you say. Nev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
was more then just a low-speed nosedive, the whole aircraft rolled

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I can't agree with your opinion. The aircraft didn't roll, it nosedived lightly, then did a quarter roll to the left, whereupon both wings and the LH landing gear broke off, and the fuselage roll stopped.

 

I'm of the opinion he wasn't really going all that fast, when he ran off the runway and nosedived (maybe 35kts?), and I would have though the wing attachment strength would have been higher than what it is.

 

The starboard wing fracturing downwards and breaking right off, with a simple quarter roll to the left, appears to make the wing strength look weak.

 

I know the direction of the fracturing is being caused by some serious negative G forces, but I would have expected the starboard wing at least, to be able to handle that quarter roll.

 

DRACO.jpg.022c9b4bcf20d24f558e41fa0fb31aee.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I can't agree with your opinion. The aircraft didn't roll, it nosedived lightly, then did a quarter roll to the left, whereupon both wings and the LH landing gear broke off, and the fuselage roll stopped.

 

I'm of the opinion he wasn't really going all that fast, when he ran off the runway and nosedived (maybe 35kts?), and I would have though the wing attachment strength would have been higher than what it is.

 

The starboard wing fracturing downwards and breaking right off, with a simple quarter roll to the left, appears to make the wing strength look weak.

 

I know the direction of the fracturing is being caused by some serious negative G forces, but I would have expected the starboard wing at least, to be able to handle that quarter roll.

 

[ATTACH]41283[/ATTACH]

 

I would not say the wings have broken off, one strut has collapsed and the other has broken most likely due to the undercarriage having been torn from the aircraft sideways. The wings are still bolted to the fuselage.  I missed the nose dive bit. It is no wonder journalist's struggle with this stuff.   

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
No struts. 

 

You are so right, it's no wonder journalist's struggle with this stuff. I have seen a million pictures of draco, just assumed being high wing that it was strutted.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be interesting to see how the wings were held on.  I used to service some Blanik gliders and thier method of wing attachment is a special metal bracket at the spar end and a hinge pin etc. Never looked enough but held up in service. Cheers

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I missed the nose dive bit.

 

 

 

 

Well, perhaps it wasn't a nose dive, in the true sense of the word. But when he was going sideways, and the port undercarriage leg collapsed, he certainly nosedived enough into terra firma, to reduce the prop to stubs.

 

I guess the lack of struts on the wings is a big factor in why they broke so rapidly.

 

DRACO-2.thumb.jpg.ed9f2d2eca4e5b16068ec27eabed8d90.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

“Nose dive” sits well with the journo’s terms like “plummets”, “narrowly escaped death” and “The Cessna” (for any aircraft other than an airliner. 

 

Can’t say I’ve ever seen an aeroplane tail dive or wing dive into the ground.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
“Nose dive” sits well with the journo’s terms like “plummets”, “narrowly escaped death” and “The Cessna” (for any aircraft other than an airliner. 

 

Can’t say I’ve ever seen an aeroplane tail dive or wing dive into the ground.

 

Well they can do both. There's an NTSB report where the pilot of a Cessna 150 used the falling leaf method to slow down his aircraft and tail dived into the ground for progressive crumple, and saved both himself and passenger. 

 

 

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Low speed STOL doesn't need to be "Normally" able to handle high negative G.    Strut or no strut the structure would have to achieve the design structural loads. A strut makes the wing more stiff but a normal strut doesn't work particularly well in a negative G situation. Having BOTH wings fail at the point of attachment to the fuselage without any obvious damage otherwise , shows a design weakness pretty clearly. Nev

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well they can do both. There's an NTSB report where the pilot of a Cessna 150 used the falling leaf method to slow down his aircraft and tail dived into the ground for progressive crumple, and saved both himself and passenger. 

 

Perhaps you could post a link to the NTSB report? I cannot see how a falling leaf manoeuvre would allow an aircraft to reverse into the ground. A falling leaf is simply a sequence of consecutive incipient spins. 

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...