Weight and balance much??

benyflyguy

benyflyguy

En-Route
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
3,755
Location
NEPA
Display Name
Display name:
benyflyguy
Just saw this over on Reddit. Wild video. Overweight, inexperienced, high DA. What could go right??!!
 
Wonder if he ever retracted the gear? There never appeared to be a change in rate of climb after lift off.
 
I had to look it up.
The Embraer EMB-721 Sertanejo series were Piper PA-32R Lance/Saratoga aircraft built under license in Brazil.
Click to expand...

Did they take off from the grass? Or immediately upon liftoff drift left over the infield? Or was it an optical delusion?
 
Domenick said:
I had to look it up.


Did they take off from the grass? Or immediately upon liftoff drift left over the infield? Or was it an optical delusion?
Click to expand...

I wondered that too, then I saw that tall building that appears to be close to the runway centerline. I think he was in collision avoidance mode the second the wheels left the ground.
 
Domenick said:
I had to look it up.


Did they take off from the grass? Or immediately upon liftoff drift left over the infield? Or was it an optical delusion?
Click to expand...
Looked to me like he lost control of the airplane before liftoff and had a brief roll in the grass before liftoff.
 
With a nose-dragger if the tail isn't on the ground it's in balance :) and on floats if the water level is below the top of the pontoon it isn't overweight :) overseas if you can get one more paying customer in it isn't full :)
 
Reminds me of some Pietenpol takeoffs... my initial turn urgency was based on how furiously my son’s head was nodding... yikes.
 
vEriCaL ViDEo iS ThE BeST!

..the fact that 99% of people find this acceptable is disgraceful
upload_2021-12-13_12-52-28.png



also, reminds me a bit of this FlightChops video from a few years ago, at least this is in landscape mode.. also fast forwarded to 1:00
 
Tense takeoff.
19°54′33″S 043°59′21″W
Look it up on Google Earth. 3044' elevation. On 11 August 2021, midday it was about 30C (86F) and 30.12 inHg. DA calculates to about 5200 feet. Zoom in on the 27 end of the runway and turn on 3D buildings. You'll see the runway is on a 50 foot embankment, putting it just over height of the first building
 
Tantalum said:
vEriCaL ViDEo iS ThE BeST!
also, reminds me a bit of this FlightChops video from a few years ago, at least this is in landscape mode.. also fast forwarded to 1:00
Click to expand...
That looks like Concrete, WA (3W5), elevation 267. The narrator characterizes the field as "a very short runway." For God's sake it's 2600' long. That's NOT "very short." That's not even "short."

If you watch the first few seconds as the plane turns onto the runway, there is some indication of a tailwind in the trees and bushes to the left. Hard to know for sure.

An interesting thing about Concrete is it lays in a crook of the Skagit River. Either direction, landing or takeoff, you pass over the river. In the summer, the water is snow melt, ice water, and it creates little sink holes at each end of the runway.

Rising up has a turbo Bonanza at MGW with a ground roll of 1176' and a 50-foot obstacle clearance of 2012'. Obviously, we don't know the DA, but to me, it seems something else must have been amiss.
 
Domenick said:
That looks like Concrete, WA (3W5), elevation 267. The narrator characterizes the field as "a very short runway." For God's sake it's 2600' long. That's NOT "very short." That's not even "short..."
Click to expand...
I just checked Mears field on SkyVector. Apparently the runway is 60 foot LONG and 2906 foot WIDE...

Well, it is in portrait mode.
 
Last edited:
Domenick said:
Concrete... lays in a crook of the Skagit River. Either direction, landing or takeoff, you pass over the river. In the summer, the water is snow melt, ice water, and it creates little sink holes at each end of the runway...
Click to expand...
The (-late 80s) 3000 foot long gravel runway at HSL (Huslia Alaska) sat in a crook with a vestigial hoop lake adding to the fun. Technically 3/21, we called it 3/20 because it had literally been built in a gentle arc (to the right as one looked NNE) where the ground was firm enough to support a runway.
 
wait, take-offs aren't supposed to look like those?
 
Warren Dunes said:
I just checked Mears field on SkyVector. Apparently the runway is 60 foot LONG and 2906 foot WIDE...Well, it is in portrait mode.
Click to expand...
Check the Seattle sectional and AirNav.com.
 
Domenick said:
That looks like Concrete, WA (3W5), elevation 267. The narrator characterizes the field as "a very short runway." For God's sake it's 2600' long. That's NOT "very short." That's not even "short."

If you watch the first few seconds as the plane turns onto the runway, there is some indication of a tailwind in the trees and bushes to the left. Hard to know for sure.

An interesting thing about Concrete is it lays in a crook of the Skagit River. Either direction, landing or takeoff, you pass over the river. In the summer, the water is snow melt, ice water, and it creates little sink holes at each end of the runway.

Rising up has a turbo Bonanza at MGW with a ground roll of 1176' and a 50-foot obstacle clearance of 2012'. Obviously, we don't know the DA, but to me, it seems something else must have been amiss.
Click to expand...

Concrete and Darrington are great for teaching new pilots respect for take off and landing performance because they are just barely challenging enough you have to pay attention. PPLs who only ever see the easy runways are a little shell-shocked when they see those knob hills, the trees and the river, all so very close.

 
Last edited:
Where the squirrels look down and wave when you're on short final.......


Reminds me of when Neil Armstrong, pre Apollo, bounced his X15 off of the atmosphere too hard, lost too much energy and hand to improvise his landing. When asked about his clearance, the director said that didn't sound too bad.... until it was clarified that was referring to his horizonal distance to obstruction, not vertical.
 
wilkersk said:
Concrete and Darrington are great for teaching new pilots respect for take off and landing performance because they are just barely challenging enough you have to pay attention. PPLs who only ever see the easy runways are a little shell-shocked when they see those knob hills, the trees and the river, all so very close.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Washington is the only place you see terrain out your window on takeoff. You bet. :rolleyes:
 
Tantalum said:
also, reminds me a bit of this FlightChops video from a few years ago, at least this is in landscape mode.. also fast forwarded to 1:00
Click to expand...

I wish I could watch this video somehow without giving him credit for my view.

Domenick said:
The narrator characterizes the field as "a very short runway." For God's sake it's 2600' long. That's NOT "very short." That's not even "short."
Click to expand...

Yep. That sounds like flitechoppes. Gotta say something dramatic to drive attention to his videos... Dang, now I'm gonna have to watch it. Sort of like how I have to watch new JW vidz.
 
steingar said:
Yeah, Washington is the only place you see terrain out your window on takeoff. You bet. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Don't know what that reply is all about. But, in my neck of the woods, the most popular places for students to do touch and goes are 5,000+ foot runways in flat valleys with no obstructions for miles. So, when the studs do get out to a 2,600 X 40 runway, tucked away behind a knob hill and surrounded by tall evergreens, its a bit of a shock. That's all I meant. So, lighten up Francis! ;)
 
I've posted this photo before of my first visit to Darrington (1S2) in my Warrior. Guess what's going on in the lower right?
1S2.Darrington.Rwy.10.jpg
Take off on 10 and Gold Mountain looms large. Land on 28 and it seems your gear are scraping treetops. In reality, there's plenty of room.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top