PA-46 down outside Seligman, AZ

Those last 20 seconds look like a real unpleasant ride.

upload_2022-9-14_13-16-28.png

guessing 366kt is somewhere above a PA46's redline.
 
I knew about the thunderstorms. That looks horrific.
 
readytocopy995 said:
the registered owner has a bit of a checkered history with the law and a student certificate (at the moment)

will wait for more details and confirmation of the certificate but doesn't look great
Click to expand...
With his DUI history, it would be amazing if he'd get a medical at all. Took his wife with him, it appears.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
With his DUI history, it would be amazing if he'd get a medical at all. Took his wife with him, it appears.
Click to expand...
Let’s be real, though. The medical may or may not have saved his life. Pilots with current medicals also fly into thunderstorms with negative consequences. The issue is ADM. What if the DUI issue actually made it harder to get this guy into hands where he would get better instruction on good ADM? The lack of a medical didn’t stop him from flying, or dying.
 
Pilawt said:
Don't you have to get a medical in order to have a student certificate?.
Click to expand...

Nope. The student pilot certificate has been a separate certificate from the medical certificate for a while now.
 
I used to look at Malibus as a possible “step up” aircraft, but they seem to break apart like this QUITE often. :/
 
dans2992 said:
I used to look at Malibus as a possible “step up” aircraft, but they seem to break apart like this QUITE often. :/
Click to expand...

Really, what other GA plane can handle testing at or near the speed of sound?
 
Last edited:
MalibuJim said:
Really, what other GA plane can handle flight testing at or near the speed of sound?
Click to expand...
I betting the test you refer too was straight and level with high altitude. The plane in question broke apart at or below 366 knots so I’m not sure that “at or near the speed of sound” argument will fly very far. At 80,000 feet I could flat and level a 172 to insane speeds if it only had the engine to get there. Low altitude in a storm with high speeds and all bets are off…. As well as the wings. And tail.
 
John Spartan said:
I betting the test you refer too was straight and level with high altitude. The plane in question broke apart at or below 366 knots so I’m not sure that “at or near the speed of sound” argument will fly very far. At 80,000 feet I could flat and level a 172 to insane speeds if it only had the engine to get there. Low altitude in a storm with high speeds and all bets are off…. As well as the wings. And tail.
Click to expand...
You don't think you can rip the wings off of Cessna's? Why do you think they have a redline then?
 
John Spartan said:
I betting the test you refer too was straight and level with high altitude. The plane in question broke apart at or below 366 knots so I’m not sure that “at or near the speed of sound” argument will fly very far. At 80,000 feet I could flat and level a 172 to insane speeds if it only had the engine to get there. Low altitude in a storm with high speeds and all bets are off…. As well as the wings. And tail.
Click to expand...

INDICATED AIRSPEED - "Structural testing and review of the Malibu/Mirage airframe came from several sources. The FAA, Piper, and the NASA Langley facility validated the results of Piper's original calculations on the PA-46's aeroelasticity and flutter characteristics. The analysis proved that the wings would begin to flutter at about 600 KIAS, the horizontal tail at better than 1,000 KIAS. That's better than three times the airplane's VNE of 198 KIAS and well into the supersonic realm."
 
Salty said:
You don't think you can rip the wings off of Cessna's? Why do you think they have a redline then?
Click to expand...

of course you can. the point was the testing comment isn’t really relevant. Fly into a thunderstorm and bets are off. And any test taking a GA airframe to nearly the speed of sound isn’t maneuvering or in turbulence.
 
MalibuJim said:
INDICATED AIRSPEED - "Structural testing and review of the Malibu/Mirage airframe came from several sources. The FAA, Piper, and the NASA Langley facility validated the results of Piper's original calculations on the PA-46's aeroelasticity and flutter characteristics. The analysis proved that the wings would begin to flutter at about 600 KIAS, the horizontal tail at better than 1,000 KIAS. That's better than three times the airplane's VNE of 198 KIAS and well into the supersonic realm."
Click to expand...

I’m sure the Malibu is a spectacular plane, MalibuJim

Assuming your moniker indicates ownership, you are a lucky guy. Wouldn’t test that speed of sound thing though. ;)
 
John Spartan said:
of course you can. the point was the testing comment isn’t really relevant. Fly into a thunderstorm and bets are off. And any test taking a GA airframe to nearly the speed of sound isn’t maneuvering or in turbulence.
Click to expand...

I doubt the speed itself was the terminal factor, the G loading AT that speed and the turbulence in the TS were more than likely his demise. This guy had a death wish, more money than brains, and if it wasn't this accident that killed him, it would have been another in the not-too-distant future. He didn't have a license or a medical, so rules meant nothing to this guy.
 
MalibuJim said:
I doubt the speed itself was the terminal factor, the G loading AT that speed and the turbulence in the TS were more than likely his demise. This guy had a death wish, more money than brains, and if it wasn't this accident that killed him, it would have been another in the not-too-distant future. He didn't have a license or a medical, so rules meant nothing to this guy.
Click to expand...

100% and an unhealthy invincibility complex.

Guy was a contractor too. One would have to wonder about his work at this point. Hope he didn’t build things the way he approached aviation. Yikes.
 
John Spartan said:
Guy was a contractor too. One would have to wonder about his work at this point. Hope he didn’t build things the way he approached aviation. Yikes.
Click to expand...
His company's website (wilsoncontractingwf.com) ironically suggests an emphasis on demolition and excavation.
 
Assuming there's a contingent of not-so-great pilots among all the manufacturers, is there any empirical data out there that suggests Pipers come apart more readily when pushed outside their envelope?

If a 206, Bonanza, Mooney, PA-46, and SR-22 all blast into the same cell will they all come apart?

Maybe Ron has some stats in his formidable database?
 
MalibuJim said:
INDICATED AIRSPEED - "Structural testing and review of the Malibu/Mirage airframe came from several sources. The FAA, Piper, and the NASA Langley facility validated the results of Piper's original calculations on the PA-46's aeroelasticity and flutter characteristics. The analysis proved that the wings would begin to flutter at about 600 KIAS, the horizontal tail at better than 1,000 KIAS. That's better than three times the airplane's VNE of 198 KIAS and well into the supersonic realm."
Click to expand...
Do you really believe this was flight testing?
 
Tantalum said:
Assuming there's a contingent of not-so-great pilots among all the manufacturers, is there any empirical data out there that suggests Pipers come apart more readily when pushed outside their envelope?

If a 206, Bonanza, Mooney, PA-46, and SR-22 all blast into the same cell will they all come apart?

Maybe Ron has some stats in his formidable database?
Click to expand...

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the safety of the Beechcraft V35 Bonanza became a major issue. The problem was a pattern of in-flight airframe failures. Many of these disintegrations occurred in instrument meteorological conditions and with non-instrument-rated pilots at the controls. There was considerable speculation that the V35's V-tail design was partially to blame. It was learned that under certain high G loadings, the tail structure could twist and bend to an unusually large degree. Once again, a certification review was ordered, and once again, it was determined that the airplane met the rules. Eventually, a method of strengthening the V-tail's tail spar assemblies was developed by Beech, then offered to owners free of charge.

That took care of the structural component of the situation. As for the human factors aspects, the picture was less clear. Was the Bonanza too slippery, too demanding for a low-time — or unproficient — pilot?

We'll probably never know the answer to that kind of question, but it came up again in 1989 and in a similar context. This time, the reputations of the Piper Malibu (PA-46-310) and Malibu Mirage (PA-46-350) aircraft were on the line. Between May 1989 and March 1991, there were seven fatal accidents, six of them involving Malibus, one of them a Mirage. All were in-flight breakups; most occurred at altitude, some involved flight in thunderstorms, and some involved relatively low-time pilots.

The NTSB's response took more of an educational tack. It urged that pilots better familiarize themselves with the capabilities and limitations of the Malibu/Mirage's autopilot, flight director, and altitude preselect components. It also asked for more training in unusual attitude recoveries and high-altitude operations. These are good ideas for pilots of any high- performance, autopilot-equipped airplane.

It's tempting to say that the Malibu's reputation has been saved by the SCR's findings. But if the certification team spoke the truth about the Malibu/Mirage, it also revealed some other truths. One of them is that many pilots stepping up to the Malibu/Mirage's left seat apparently don't have sufficient respect for the kind of high-performance airplane that they've bought, nor the environment in which they fly.
 
MalibuJim said:
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the safety of the Beechcraft V35 Bonanza became a major issue. The problem was a pattern of in-flight airframe failures. Many of these disintegrations occurred in instrument meteorological conditions and with non-instrument-rated pilots at the controls. There was considerable speculation that the V35's V-tail design was partially to blame. It was learned that under certain high G loadings, the tail structure could twist and bend to an unusually large degree. Once again, a certification review was ordered, and once again, it was determined that the airplane met the rules. Eventually, a method of strengthening the V-tail's tail spar assemblies was developed by Beech, then offered to owners free of charge.

That took care of the structural component of the situation. As for the human factors aspects, the picture was less clear. Was the Bonanza too slippery, too demanding for a low-time — or unproficient — pilot?

We'll probably never know the answer to that kind of question, but it came up again in 1989 and in a similar context. This time, the reputations of the Piper Malibu (PA-46-310) and Malibu Mirage (PA-46-350) aircraft were on the line. Between May 1989 and March 1991, there were seven fatal accidents, six of them involving Malibus, one of them a Mirage. All were in-flight breakups; most occurred at altitude, some involved flight in thunderstorms, and some involved relatively low-time pilots.

The NTSB's response took more of an educational tack. It urged that pilots better familiarize themselves with the capabilities and limitations of the Malibu/Mirage's autopilot, flight director, and altitude preselect components. It also asked for more training in unusual attitude recoveries and high-altitude operations. These are good ideas for pilots of any high- performance, autopilot-equipped airplane.

It's tempting to say that the Malibu's reputation has been saved by the SCR's findings. But if the certification team spoke the truth about the Malibu/Mirage, it also revealed some other truths. One of them is that many pilots stepping up to the Malibu/Mirage's left seat apparently don't have sufficient respect for the kind of high-performance airplane that they've bought, nor the environment in which they fly.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the detailed and thought out response. I believe the MU2 also had a rash of issues and was the result of what was ultimately more training. Cirrus, for a plane with a parachute, was, at least at its debut in the early 2000s involved a high number of fatal accidents, until the training evolved.

All that aside, the perception at least is that there are some planes that are less tolerant of sloppy pilotage. and for all the grief Cirrus and its pilots get I'm not aware of many inflight breakups. My favorite plane, the Aerostar, is often referred to as the 'deathstar' due to its intolerance to poor pilotage

I've always been partial to Piper products, did my training and a hundreds of hours in PA-28 and my favorite current plane to rent is our club Aztec. Sometimes the 'glad the wings didn't fall off' jokes though get tired after a successful PA-28 flight haha
 
MalibuJim said:
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the safety of the Beechcraft V35 Bonanza became a major issue. The problem was a pattern of in-flight airframe failures. Many of these disintegrations occurred in instrument meteorological conditions and with non-instrument-rated pilots at the controls. There was considerable speculation that the V35's V-tail design was partially to blame. It was learned that under certain high G loadings, the tail structure could twist and bend to an unusually large degree. Once again, a certification review was ordered, and once again, it was determined that the airplane met the rules. Eventually, a method of strengthening the V-tail's tail spar assemblies was developed by Beech, then offered to owners free of charge.

That took care of the structural component of the situation. As for the human factors aspects, the picture was less clear. Was the Bonanza too slippery, too demanding for a low-time — or unproficient — pilot?

We'll probably never know the answer to that kind of question, but it came up again in 1989 and in a similar context. This time, the reputations of the Piper Malibu (PA-46-310) and Malibu Mirage (PA-46-350) aircraft were on the line. Between May 1989 and March 1991, there were seven fatal accidents, six of them involving Malibus, one of them a Mirage. All were in-flight breakups; most occurred at altitude, some involved flight in thunderstorms, and some involved relatively low-time pilots.

The NTSB's response took more of an educational tack. It urged that pilots better familiarize themselves with the capabilities and limitations of the Malibu/Mirage's autopilot, flight director, and altitude preselect components. It also asked for more training in unusual attitude recoveries and high-altitude operations. These are good ideas for pilots of any high- performance, autopilot-equipped airplane.

It's tempting to say that the Malibu's reputation has been saved by the SCR's findings. But if the certification team spoke the truth about the Malibu/Mirage, it also revealed some other truths. One of them is that many pilots stepping up to the Malibu/Mirage's left seat apparently don't have sufficient respect for the kind of high-performance airplane that they've bought, nor the environment in which they fly.
Click to expand...

To answer your question, I really doubt the V tail was as fault.

Case in point, this video

 
  • Like
Reactions: MFE
midcap said:
yeah it's a really cool video

I'd like to see how I would do in a SIM since I have thousands of hours in MSFS time :D
Click to expand...

I got the sense it might have been a Kobiashi Maru scenario with the guy in the right constantly altering whatever you overcame with a new problem. I am curious about doing that test though.
 
John Spartan said:
I got the sense it might have been a Kobiashi Maru scenario with the guy in the right constantly altering whatever you overcame with a new problem. I am curious about doing that test though.
Click to expand...

that's a good point....From the video I think he wasn't making it easy. Looks like he was adjusting the IMC level and also throwing some turbulence at them.

What's interesting is that you can see at every point where it's obvious they are screwed but they don't know it yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top