177RG Lake Havasu

pmanton said:
Followup on this. It was a chap from Texas. It was hotter than the hinges of Hades at Havasu when this happened.
Click to expand...
Cardinals aren't the hottest high density altitude performers. We only fly with a crew of 2, some cameras, and small overnight bags. Out in the Midland area it isn't uncommon for the heat to slow our climb rate to 3-400 fps with a relatively fresh engine.
 
pmanton said:
Followup on this. It was a chap from Texas. It was hotter than the hinges of Hades at Havasu when this happened.
Click to expand...
Per Flightaware, it was 109 degrees, density was 4372 about that time.
 
Don’t know the performance, but with one on board should of been fine. The plane would be doggy of course, lower climb rate, lower nose attitude.
 
It was an RG, which has a 200-hp fuel injected engine, and there was only one person on board. This is not one of the early 150-hp models. Unless it was really loaded with cargo, performance should not have been a serious issue, even with the heat. There was 8000 feet of runway. Perhaps combined with something else going on it might, but DA alone shouldn't haven't caused this.
 
I've got several hundred hours in Cardinal RGs. Last June I ferried one from North Carolina to Washington state. It was fully loaded for every leg with myself, the new owner, his wife and all their luggage from a (unrelated) very long trip. They aren't STOL planes but they fly well and haul a pretty good load. The one I owned had a useful load of 1006 lbs and this one had something like 980 lbs.

On the trip we were at max gross for every takeoff. It was hot so DA was an issue at every place we landed. I insisted that every runway be at least 5000' long and I monitored every takeoff roll to verify they matched my calculated distances (they did).
The longest takeoff roll was out of Casper, WY which was 5500' MSL and it was quite hot. We took off from runway 21 and were off at the intersection with the crossing runway. Google confirms that to be about 2350'. Climb was not exciting but it was safe.

One occupant in this plane and an 8000' runway should not have been an issue.
 
steingar said:
Another thread on this accident.
Click to expand...
That's how I got here. It is mostly a condolences and mutual support thread so I didn't want to dirty it up with data. RIP to the pilot.
 
I believe (based on his past posts) that Gary had a hangar at Eagle Airpark (A09), about 30 miles north of KHII, with only a 4,800 ft. runway. KHII is only 300 ft. higher and has an 8,000-ft. runway, so I doubt that DA would have surprised him. I wonder, though, if he went to KHII to fuel up (none available at A09), so was leaving at a much higher gross weight.

Or, of course, misfueling, though it's hard to see anyone putting Jet A in a Cardinal.

In any case, RIP, Gary, and condolences to his family and friends.
 
Mikey B said:
Or, of course, misfueling, though it's hard to see anyone putting Jet A in a Cardinal.
Click to expand...
The last flight aware track showed him being airborne for 11 minutes, so misfueling seems rather unlikely. I would also say though, that density altitude of ~4,000ft isn’t very high and should be well within the capabilities of a 200hp Cardinal, especially with one passenger. I’ll be following this one…
 
RyanB said:
The last flight aware track showed him being airborne for 11 minutes, so misfueling seems rather unlikely. I would also say though, that density altitude of ~4,000ft isn’t very high and should be well within the capabilities of a 200hp Cardinal, especially with one passenger. I’ll be following this one…
Click to expand...

I think that was his previous flight. The crash occurred just south of the runway.
 
Comments on kathryns report mentioned plane took all of 8000’ of that runway. Not sure how they can determine that. Seems odd. God bless.
 
Pugs said:
Odd. If I read that right he wasn't climbing but had plenty of airspeed to do so. But first time I've seen those annotations.
Click to expand...

Look at the times. There is a 20 min gap in the data points between the midfield and departure end of runway.
 
Kyle N said:
Look at the times. There is a 20 min gap in the data points between the midfield and departure end of runway.
Click to expand...

That was when he taxied off and went to the FBO, then taxied back to the (almost) start of the runway. Do the little animation of all the legs, the taxi is grey lines. It is confusing, there are two orange lines for part of the way on the active, the landing one and the departing one.

Zoom in up close makes it easier.
 
Kyle N said:
Look at the times. There is a 20 min gap in the data points between the midfield and departure end of runway.
Click to expand...
Expand out. The previous landing and the departure get muddled together. The first hit on the departure is at 23:07:57 at about taxiway A5. Last hit over the runway at 23:08:54, then it veers right and the last hit is 23:09:03.

upload_2021-9-15_14-23-9.png
 
Thanks for the clarification that makes more sense.
 
Pugs said:
Odd. If I read that right he wasn't climbing but had plenty of airspeed to do so. But first time I've seen those annotations.
Click to expand...
The thing I’m noticing about speeds is they reduce as the takeoff progresses. They are groundspeeds only as accurate as can calculated by the computer doing time/distance calculations. First hit on the departure is 60 about midfield by taxiway A3. Next is a couple 65’s then it slows down. 56,56,54,54,54. I’m beginning to wondering about climbing out of ground effect issues maybe?? Flap setting?? SOP for Cardinals is 10 degrees for takeoff then dump them soon after getting airborne.
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
. 56,56,54,54,54. I’m beginning to wondering about climbing out of ground effect issues maybe?? Flap setting?? SOP for Cardinals is 10 degrees for takeoff then dump them soon after getting airborne.
Click to expand...

I don't know what to make of those numbers, either. I didn't know if they were ground speed or airspeed. What were the winds? My 180 hp fixed gear Cardinal quickly gets up to 65 and 70 knots, even when it's hot and humid. So, those numbers for a 200-hp version seem like the plane wasn't making great power, although admittedly, I am not sure how those numbers translate to the actual airspeed in light of winds, climb angle, and adjustments for atmospheric conditions, etc. But given the way the air speed declines, does that suggest that something happened that reduced the plane's power from the additional takeoff roll?
 
I have to wonder if vapor lock was an issue with those outside temps. I've rejected takeoffs after an engine stumble a couple of times on hot days when the fuel pressure dropped off at full throttle. I was burning mogas which has a lower vapor pressure than 100LL so that probably contributed.
 
Rgbeard said:
control lock not removed?
Click to expand...

That's an idea, but pretty hard to do in the Cardinal if the normal control lock was being used. It is right in the control column in front of you and there is a big metal flag which hangs down to the left to cover the magneto/ignition switch. I suppose one could also even quickly pull it out in flight if necessary (not that I would want to try!)
 
This was from the Gone West thread and has some interesting discussion of the numbers.

flyingcheesehead said:
I followed the ADS-B Exchange link. It's a bit confusing because of the way they color it, and it has his landing as well as the takeoff. However, it looks like he used full length for takeoff on runway 14 at KHII at 18:08 local. For reference, KHII is at 783 MSL.

After the last ping on the ground (on the taxiway), the first ping airborne is maybe 1700 feet down the runway but has no altitude or speed data other than that. The next one is 4400 feet down the runway, at 1000 feet baro altitude/700 geometric, vertical speed never exceeded 192 ft/min but was showing as 64 ft/min over the runway.

The baro altitude never went above 1000. Groundspeed never got above 65. A little over 6000 feet down the runway, speed dropped from 65 to 56 in 3 seconds with no corresponding increase in altitude, suggesting something happened there... But speed stayed there so it wasn't a total power loss or anything. About 900 feet from the end of the runway, geometric altitude went up 50 feet and a turn of about 45º to the right occurred.

So, maybe a mechanical issue, disguised by the high DA causing bad performance too, mechanical issue got worse partway down the runway but there was still power, just not enough to go? Who knows. We'll find out in a year. I hope there are some answers then.
Click to expand...
 
PPC1052 said:
I don't know what to make of those numbers, either. I didn't know if they were ground speed or airspeed. What were the winds? My 180 hp fixed gear Cardinal quickly gets up to 65 and 70 knots, even when it's hot and humid. So, those numbers for a 200-hp version seem like the plane wasn't making great power, although admittedly, I am not sure how those numbers translate to the actual airspeed in light of winds, climb angle, and adjustments for atmospheric conditions, etc. But given the way the air speed declines, does that suggest that something happened that reduced the plane's power from the additional takeoff roll?
Click to expand...
Yeah. Ya can't put to much stock into the speeds themselves, but comparing the increases and decreases to each other can tell a story. I used to own a 177B also and I've flown RG's. Not much difference. When would you usually dump the 10 degrees of takeoff flaps? As far as how much that 200 horse engine was producing then, who knows. The DA was high enough that leaning for departure would have been something to think about. Post accident investigation will show where the red knob was.
 
I always do it after gear up and above 90 indicated, otherwise you get a pronounced sag in climb rate.
 
Kansas Flyer said:
I have to wonder if vapor lock was an issue with those outside temps. I've rejected takeoffs after an engine stumble a couple of times on hot days when the fuel pressure dropped off at full throttle. I was burning mogas which has a lower vapor pressure than 100LL so that probably contributed.
Click to expand...
Mogas has a much higher vapor pressure than 100LL, which can cause vapor lock.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Mogas has a much higher vapor pressure than 100LL, which can cause vapor lock.
Click to expand...

When you say "Mogas" does that mean ethanol free or include with ethanol? My question really is does ethanol free pump gas have the same vapor issue? We fly a Rotax 912 and use ethanol free premium.
 
Flyxaos said:
When you say mogas, does that mean ethanol free or include with ethanol? My question really is does ethanol free pump gas have the same vapor issue?
Click to expand...
Mogas means gasoline for motor cars, aka passenger cars. So mogas includes both ethanol-free and ethanol containing blends, depending on what's available where you are. Ethanol is a vapor pressure antagonist... it will raise mogas vapor pressure about one PSI.
That said, in the summertime, mogas and avgas have about the same vapor pressure... 7 PSI. In the wintertime, avgas is still 7 PSI, but mogas can be as much as twice that.

Paul
 
aftCG said:
I always do it after gear up and above 90 indicated, otherwise you get a pronounced sag in climb rate.
Click to expand...
The POH for my '76 RG says that for a maximum performance takeoff, retract flaps as you accelerate through 70 knots. That's what I do, and the climb rate sag is very small or non-existent.
 
Can’t imagine using even 4000’ of the runway … the plane not ready to fly … and continuing the roll.

(if that information is correct) I’ve rejected one takeoff roll after a bug got lodged in the pitot tube. Always be prepared for it.
 
Prelim report is out. Engine tear down showed significant pitting, sprawling, and broken piston rings with scored piston skirts. Past engine oil analysis showed elevated metal signatures indicative of excessive ring wear among other things. Blows my mind how someone ignores so many warning signs when their life is on the line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top