This looks absolutely terrifying. Passenger films crash.

SixPapaCharlie

SixPapaCharlie

May the force be with you
Joined
Aug 8, 2013
Messages
16,415
Display Name
Display name:
Sixer
If this is not appropriate I will pull it. I don't know if it's out of line.


 
I remember flying in the CV 340 as a kid to see the grand parents. Between Dallas Love and Midland-Odessa, and then San Angelo when they moved there.

CV340.jpg
 
Yeah that video is nuts. At least most of the people I believe survived. Really curious what happened, I would imagine that the plane that was supposed to be the successor to the DC-3 would be able to maintain at least level flight with one engine inop
 
News story about the accident

https://www.news.com.au/travel/trav...s/news-story/1fe14910daae2aaa7ea966244985343e

a28f1e035e61b63e4e600d4806a945c1
 
I'd like to know why according to the news they had 19 people aboard for a test flight.
 
Screw capturing video; I'm going to brace position!
Looks like they couldn't, or didn't feather it? See it spinnin' til late in the show.
At least they maintained flying speed.
 
Tantalum said:
I would imagine that the plane that was supposed to be the successor to the DC-3 would be able to maintain at least level flight with one engine inop
Click to expand...
Yeah you’d think, especially at altitude.
 
Tantalum said:
Yeah that video is nuts. At least most of the people I believe survived. Really curious what happened, I would imagine that the plane that was supposed to be the successor to the DC-3 would be able to maintain at least level flight with one engine inop
Click to expand...
That video is actually pretty helpful as it answers some questions.

I’ve seen the external video of the takeoff. They were losing the left engine while still over the runway. Seemed benign but most of us wondered why it wasn’t able to climb out.

This internal video explains that. The prop was never feathered. Not sure why. Could be that there was something wrong with the system and it wouldn’t feather, could be they forgot to feather or feathered the wrong engine or they chose not to feather thinking it was still producing power.

Either way, it’s hard to climb out with one engine on fire and still windmilling.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Either way, it’s hard to climb out with one engine on fire and still windmilling.
Click to expand...

Correct. I'm not aware of any propeller aircraft that is designed to be able to maintain altitude with one engine windmilling. In some cases if you're particularly lightweight and conditions are favorable you might be able to, but it's an uphill battle.

Sac Arrow said:
That looks like a turboprop CV 340?
Click to expand...

The report said Pratt R-2800s, and the photo supported that. So now you've got a radial engine, which hurts that.

With ~20 people on board, my guess is that airplane wasn't at gross but not as light as it could've been, which hurts things. But as @Fearless Tower said, without the prop being feathered, that's going to be hard. My guess is that the pilots probably tried feathering it but it didn't work. Those old propellers were known for having issues feathering.

You'd be surprised how many piston aircraft won't feather like they're supposed to, either. That's why you should check that every year in flight to make sure it will actually feather before annual. But most pilots don't, justifying it by saying it's dangerous to do so. Load of crap - if you can't fly it on one engine in a controlled manner under good conditions in VMC for a test, what makes you think you're competent to fly it when one fails for real at an inopportune time? Answer: You're not, and that means you're safer in a single.
 
One of the things about old radials is you typically have a high PSI feathering pump that drives the blades into feather. Unlike a light twin where you pull the prop back into a feather position, you have to push a button to operate the pump to feather it.

You can’t tell for certain with just the video, but it is possible that there was something wrong with the system and the spurts of flame you see in the video was the crew trying to push the button which was pumping oil into the fire.
 
Fearless Tower said:
This internal video explains that. The prop was never feathered.
Click to expand...
Just rewatched it. Good point. I noticed when I first watched the video that they were not turning into the dead engine (but away from it, perhaps in an attempt to make it back to the runway but gave up likely when they realized they didn't have the energy for it) and the pilots it looked like did a solid job of keeping it from stalling.. just flew it controlled into the ground, which I bet is why there were as many (or any) survivors

Fearless Tower said:
the spurts of flame you see in the video was the crew trying to push the button which was pumping oil into the fire.
Click to expand...
that makes sense. I remember watching an Air Disasters about a plane who's prop control failed, and the fail safe was to feather, however at certain airspeeds and propeller aerodynamic loads the prop would instead go to flat pitch.. naturally they crashed with I don't think any survivors. Found it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Southeast_Airlines_Flight_2311 <- seems insidious. I can't imagine being a pilot and trying to diagnose that! Flying also had an ILAFT where someone managed to restart a feather prop by increasing the airspeed and getting it to windmill even from feathered

Ted DuPuis said:
Load of crap - if you can't fly it on one engine in a controlled manner under good conditions in VMC for a test, what makes you think you're competent to fly it when one fails for real at an inopportune time? Answer: You're not, and that means you're safer in a single.
Click to expand...
Excellent point. Our training has gotten very "safe" in that regard.. with the hope that an accident won't happen, and if it does, then you can go off checklists and rote memory items. Stall recovery training always surprised me how "controlled" it was... you spend 5 minutes "setting up the aircraft" then very gently do a little baby stall. CFIs and examiners should sneak it up on you... like halfway through your steep turns start to finagle the power (or something) to get you into a situation where a stall may happen.. and if it does could generate into a spin... like the "turn to final" stall. Until it sneaks up on you and you can recover it I would say you aren't really *trained* in many areas. Imagine if you never had to actually do an instrument approach in instrument training.. "you know, just follow the needles, and maintain 90 knots" <- well it's much harder in practice! Engine failures, stalls, etc., if anything are worse because the anxiety is that much higher


PS.. if only this damn plane wasn't so expensive.. the Diamond DA62 looks awesome through and through. But with its price tag.. no pressurization, and performance envelope it fits a very niche area where most buyers will either go with Cirrus (proven, one engine to maintain, parachute, engine is from well known builder) or step up to the turbine world. Too bad. It's a really cool and capable plane. They routinely shut an engine during the demo videos
 
Tantalum said:
Excellent point. Our training has gotten very "safe" in that regard.. with the hope that an accident won't happen, and if it does, then you can go off checklists and rote memory items. Stall recovery training always surprised me how "controlled" it was... you spend 5 minutes "setting up the aircraft" then very gently do a little baby stall. CFIs and examiners should sneak it up on you... like halfway through your steep turns start to finagle the power (or something) to get you into a situation where a stall may happen.. and if it does could generate into a spin... like the "turn to final" stall. Until it sneaks up on you and you can recover it I would say you aren't really *trained* in many areas. Imagine if you never had to actually do an instrument approach in instrument training.. "you know, just follow the needles, and maintain 90 knots" <- well it's much harder in practice! Engine failures, stalls, etc., if anything are worse because the anxiety is that much higher
Click to expand...

There's a real balance to be had between making training safe but also making sure you're properly trained. Wayne Bower and I spent a few hours catching up a month or so back and were talking about training. A point he made was that roughly 85% of crashes are pilot error because most pilots are only learning about 15% of what they need to know. The MU-2 has shown the success of this concept - turning a plane from the most lethal in the fleet to the safest in the fleet by changing one thing: training.

What it really comes down to is setting yourself up to succeed when (not if) things go south on you. Part of that is making sure your equipment is functioning correctly, as well as making sure that you as PIC is up to the task at hand.

Not saying these guys weren't trained or did anything wrong - it looks to me as if they did everything they could. I'm just using the opportunity to point out something we should all be considering.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Correct. I'm not aware of any propeller aircraft that is designed to be able to maintain altitude with one engine windmilling. In some cases if you're particularly lightweight and conditions are favorable you might be able to, but it's an uphill battle.



The report said Pratt R-2800s, and the photo supported that. So now you've got a radial engine, which hurts that.

With ~20 people on board, my guess is that airplane wasn't at gross but not as light as it could've been, which hurts things. But as @Fearless Tower said, without the prop being feathered, that's going to be hard. My guess is that the pilots probably tried feathering it but it didn't work. Those old propellers were known for having issues feathering.

You'd be surprised how many piston aircraft won't feather like they're supposed to, either. That's why you should check that every year in flight to make sure it will actually feather before annual. But most pilots don't, justifying it by saying it's dangerous to do so. Load of crap - if you can't fly it on one engine in a controlled manner under good conditions in VMC for a test, what makes you think you're competent to fly it when one fails for real at an inopportune time? Answer: You're not, and that means you're safer in a single.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I was asking about the airplane in post #2.
 
Had to change a couple of feathering pumps on B-25 over the years, once after the pump burned up and started smoking when tested before a flight. Never saw folks unass an airplane so fast.
 
I don't know if anyone has seen it, but one of the pilots, Ross Kelly, is a pilot that was shown in the documentary "Return of the Catalina" It's able to be streamed on Amazon Prime Video.

From the series he looked like a fantastic pilot I'd certainly trust. I hope they get well soon and the prognosis remains good.
 
News said both pilots were former A380 pilots. Wow
 
You first engine out in your mighty Grumman will also be terrifying @SixPapaCharlie , but at least you’ll be busy with something to do instead of just sitting there waiting for the crunch.
 
Without going down a tangent... do/did planes like the DC3/DC6/DC7/CV340, etc., have ice protection... or did they just not fly in it / get out of it? I ask because most "modern" turboprops and other prop driven planes all have boots for ice protection.. some like the Cirrus and some Diamond have the TKS weeping wing

I've never seen "boots" on one of the propeller airliners... yet I presume they flew into ice? Did they heat the wing with some other means?
 
Tantalum said:
Without going down a tangent... do/did planes like the DC3/DC6/DC7/CV340, etc., have ice protection... or did they just not fly in it / get out of it? I ask because most "modern" turboprops and other prop driven planes all have boots for ice protection.. some like the Cirrus and some Diamond have the TKS weeping wing

I've never seen "boots" on one of the propeller airliners... yet I presume they flew into ice? Did they heat the wing with some other means?
Click to expand...

They had boots.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
They had boots.
Click to expand...
Thanks! Was it an option that most did not have? I don't think I've ever seen a classic "prop giant" photo of one with boots, like the one below. Just curious

upload_2018-7-19_18-49-51.png
 
Tantalum said:
Thanks! Was it an option that most did not have? I don't think I've ever seen a classic "prop giant" photo of one with boots, like the one below. Just curious

View attachment 65130
Click to expand...

Gasoline heaters heated the leading edge on the DC-6&7.

Some of the Connies had boots. My dad has a story about replacing one. They tore it when they were close to being done and had to start over. He was a mechanic for Braniff in the mid 50's. Got hired with Continental as a pilot in 56 and was a FE on the DC-6 & 7's.
 
Last edited:
Tantalum said:
Thanks! Was it an option that most did not have? I don't think I've ever seen a classic "prop giant" photo of one with boots, like the one below. Just curious

View attachment 65130
Click to expand...

I think today many of the show planes we’ve seen that are DC-3s have had them removed. I didn’t realize that the 6/7 had heated wings (thanks for that @Plano Pilot ) but most had boots. Even some of the older jets had boots. Jetstar comes to mind.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I think today many of the show planes we’ve seen that are DC-3s have had them removed. I didn’t realize that the 6/7 had heated wings (thanks for that @Plano Pilot ) but most had boots. Even some of the older jets had boots. Jetstar comes to mind.
Click to expand...
A lot of the current DC-3s/C-47s have ‘painted’ boots. Basically the boots have long been removed and black paint applied to complete the ‘look’.

As you likely know, boots are bloody expensive to replace.

There are still a few Beech 18s flying around with working boots. A friend of mine still had boots on his and they work. Mine were removed decades ago.
 
Fearless Tower said:
A lot of the current DC-3s/C-47s have ‘painted’ boots. Basically the boots have long been removed and black paint applied to complete the ‘look’.

As you likely know, boots are bloody expensive to replace.

There are still a few Beech 18s flying around with working boots. A friend of mine still had boots on his and they work. Mine were removed decades ago.
Click to expand...

That’s common on a lot of older twins that aren’t used as all weather travel machines. I replaced the three tail boots on the Aztec and it was $10k.
 
Fearless Tower said:
A lot of the current DC-3s/C-47s have ‘painted’ boots. Basically the boots have long been removed and black paint applied to complete the ‘look’.

As you likely know, boots are bloody expensive to replace.

There are still a few Beech 18s flying around with working boots. A friend of mine still had boots on his and they work. Mine were removed decades ago.
Click to expand...

That’s common on a lot of older twins that aren’t used as all weather travel machines. I replaced the three tail boots on the Aztec and it was $10k.
 
AggieMike88 said:
I remember flying in the CV 340 as a kid to see the grand parents. Between Dallas Love and Midland-Odessa, and then San Angelo when they moved there.

View attachment 65117
Click to expand...

I think that is a CV 600, which is a CV240 with Rolls Royce Dart turboprops. The more common CV580 also started out as a CV240, but was converted to Allison turbines and paddle props.
5858622899_1eeb330a51_b.jpg


I flew in one of these back in the late 80's, round trip from Denver to Aspen. IIRC, Aspen's main competitor, Rocky Mountain Airways was flying DH Dash 7s. Later they flew yet another odd aircraft, the BAE 146:
2177583.jpg



My wife and I flew from Denver to and from Aspen in one on our first anniversary. It was our second experience with the 146, our first was from Ayers Rock to Cairns.

It used to be if you visited a major airport, you saw some different airplanes, now it seems like its mostly 737s, A319/320/321s, and CRJs.
 
FormerHangie said:
I flew in one of these back in the late 80's, round trip from Denver to Aspen. IIRC, Aspen's main competitor, Rocky Mountain Airways was flying DH Dash 7s. Later they flew yet another odd aircraft, the BAE 146:
2177583.jpg
Click to expand...

I don’t think Aspen ever had any smurfjets in their fleet. Pretty sure that was a codeshare with Air Wisconsin back then. Aspen was way too broke.

Aspen got the fake United-like paint, Rocky got bought as a full subsidiary of Continental and renamed and re-pained Continental Express, back when mainlines did stuff like that and didn’t subcontract it all out so they can play the regionals off of each other over bottom dollar feeder routes to the hubs.
 
Fearless Tower said:
The prop was never feathered. Not sure why. Could be that there was something wrong with the system and it wouldn’t feather, could be they forgot to feather or feathered the wrong engine or they chose not to feather thinking it was still producing power.
Click to expand...

Among the possibilities you list, I’d guess they shut down the wrong engine, like the 2015 crash of Transasia Airways 235 in Taipei.

In the video, the descent rate seems fast, as if they had no powered engine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top