Why didn't they fly the plane back to the runway?

M

MountainDude

Line Up and Wait
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
911
Display Name
Display name:
MountainDude
I am confused why they did not fly back to the runway? Can the plane not maintain altitude with the canopy off?

 
May have been too under powered for two men plus the added drag due to the canopy loss. And/or visibility of the pilot compromised when the canopy separated plus the inability to communicate with copilot due to noise and loss of headset.

Also, possibly the uncertainty that the "explosion" may have been more than the canopy separating.

Being so low to the ground, there was no guarantee the plane could climb or what control problems they might have if they tried.

Imo they made the right decision and got on the ground safely.
 
Dang, that's tragic. It makes me happy to have an Ercoupe. I can fly with the canopy open and can, if fact, open or close it while in flight. Yes, an open canopy does degrade performance but not enough to be unsafe. It is so nice on those hot, sweltering days we get here along the Delaware coast.
 
Why did they fly it at all?
That's my question?
I would hated to learn to fly in something that small and unproven.
 
Gary Ward said:
Why did they fly it at all?
That's my question?
I would hated to learn to fly in something that small and unproven.
Click to expand...

Sonex does have a cozy cockpit but those pilots appear to be a bit over the FAA recommended size. The other sad truth is that this particular airplane had the Aerovee (Sonex VW conversion) which is rated at 80 HP at 3400 RPM. IMNSHO that is not enough power for these airframes. OK with one up or two small folks on a cold dry day. You can see in the video the plane is working to climb. Once the canopy comes apart and drag is greatly increased the game is over. They did the correct thing as both walked away.

I also think the 360º wing mounted camera is causing the AOA to look steeper than it actually was ...
 
Is that the first time the canopy has come apart on this model aircraft. Wow they are lucky someone didn't get seriously hurt by the canopy.
 
Gary Ward said:
Is that the first time the canopy has come apart on this model aircraft. Wow they are lucky someone didn't get seriously hurt by the canopy.
Click to expand...

I've never known a Sonex canopy to come apart unless it came unlatched first. I can see in the video (1:32) that the canopy came open & that is what caused it to break apart. It isn't said but my guess is the canopy was not latched completely & not secured correctly.

The plans call for a latching spring to hold the locked tabs in place & a locking pin for security. A few builders have altered the canopy design and some have even made them a swing back canopy. I've posted the video below before but again, here is an almost disaster because the canopy was not properly locked after being closed & checked (swing back mod):

 
Gary Ward said:
Is that the first time the canopy has come apart on this model aircraft. Wow they are lucky someone didn't get seriously hurt by the canopy.
Click to expand...
N220JD, ERA21LA396, Probable Cause, "The pilot’s failure to maintain a proper glidepath during landing. Contributing to the accident was his failure to ensure the canopy locks were properly configured prior to flight."

Also N224P, but that was a SubSonex (e.g., jet, different airframe).

Canopy problems have contributed to 54 different accidents in a variety of aircraft types, in my 1998-2022 list of homebuilt accidents.

Ron Wanttaja
 
A few more small points to make ... if you look at this close up it appears that the builder has done a mod to the canopy latching tabs that is popular i.e. they have extended the tab and placed a second notch in it in order to lock the canopy slightly open for ground ops. Doing this allows the prop blast to help cool down the interior of the plane on the ground.

There was another, longer, video of this incident that showed (IIRC) several take-offs & landings with the canopy being partially opened while on the ground between flights. I had a link to the longer video in a thread about this same accident from years ago but it is not available anymore:

www.pilotsofamerica.com

The Last Flight of N32YX

Here's what can happen to a Sonex if the canopy comes open in flight:
www.pilotsofamerica.com www.pilotsofamerica.com

That video and its comments have been taken down. There is another video of them training in this plane that shows the pilot holding the canopy open while going to & from the runway. It is a 360º zoomable GoPro Max 360 5.4K vid and again the angle of attack appears strange because of the camera:


1723516847388.png
 
wanttaja said:
Canopy problems have contributed to 54 different accidents in a variety of aircraft types, in my 1998-2022 list of homebuilt accidents.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Wow. That seems excessive.

I suppose many of those accident aircraft have a canopy similar to the Sonex, essentially a plastic bubble without a rigid frame. It seems that design lends itself to distortions under air loads, and if the latching mechanism becomes compromised, the canopy may become a pilot distraction that can bring down the aircraft. There's also the risk it can be torn off and cause airframe damage.

It's obvious a partial or total loss of the canopy may produce drag that will overcome the ability of minimal horsepower engines to keep the airplane flying. The above video provides ample proof.

While many Sonex and similar designs fly for years without incident, it seems to me there isn't any margin for contingencies.

Yeah, I get it that any plane can give it up at the most inopportune moment. But the combination of a minimal design with a small engine and no surrounding protective structure creates a risk profile that's outside my comfort zone.

I know you're quite happy seeing the world in a leisurely fashion behind the windscreen of the Fly Baby, and that's great. It's just not for me.

:thumbsup:
 
The canopy latching mechanism was not per the Sonex design. The original builder did what they call the swing back canopy mod. Normally the Sonex canopy is hinged on one side and latched on the other so it swings open to the right. The swing back canopy doesn’t have a full length side hinge attached to the airframe. Instead it has a set of arms that let the canopy pivot up and over the back of the turtledeck. It has to be latched from both sides to lock properly. The original builder also deviated from the swing back canopy mod design with how the spring and locking pins worked which may or may not have contributed to the canopy coming open.

The 80hp motor is also plenty enough power for two full size adults. You just won’t be taking on full fuel or much baggage. The factory specifies 1100lbs as max gross weight. I flight tested my aerovee powered sonex up to 1300 lbs and it flew just fine. Climb rate suffers but it is no worse than to a loaded Cessna 150 in similar conditions. Many go with larger motors of 100 or 120hp because they want more sporty performance but that doesn’t make the 80hp motor unsafe in a sonex airframe. These airframes are only around 600lbs empty.

The camera is also deceiving in the video. It is one of those 360 cameras so angles get distorted the further you get away from it. This makes things like the horizon look skewed. Discussion back when it happened was that the broken pieces of canopy that stayed attached were creating additional drag on top of all the air that rushes into the tailcone. There was at least one other sonex that lost a canopy in flight. It came completely off but the pilot was able to land at a near by airport. The pilot reported that it cause the airframe to have a nose up attitude with the additional drag but it was still controllable.

I think the pilots made the right decision to land straight ahead in this video as it was the safest option with the canopy still hanging partially attached. Losing the canopy in a sonex doesn’t always mean the airframe is uncontrollable and will lead to a crash.
 
3393RP said:
Wow. That seems excessive.

I suppose many of those accident aircraft have a canopy similar to the Sonex, essentially a plastic bubble without a rigid frame. It seems that design lends itself to distortions under air loads, and if the latching mechanism becomes compromised, the canopy may become a pilot distraction that can bring down the aircraft. There's also the risk it can be torn off and cause airframe damage.
Click to expand...
The advantage of a canopy is two-fold. First, it's the easiest way to implement a closed cockpit. Fitting a door is more difficult, as the canopy merely sits atop the fuselage and adjustment is less fiddly.

Second, it's structurally stronger. You don't have to accommodate a great big hole (or TWO great big holes) across the fuselage longerons.

Most of those canopy-related accidents did not result in unflyable aircraft. Instead, the pilots were faced with sudden "explosions" when the canopy opened, and perhaps were too rattled.

Two examples come to mind. The two-seat Lancairs have had a number of canopy incidents, yet it has been demonstrated that the plane is flyable.

RAH's Bill Phillips is an example. Canopy opened after takeoff, plane plowed into the desert shortly afterwards. Phillips was a good pilot, but he had anger issues. My personal opinion (his wife survived, but doesn't remember the accident) is that he got distracted and let the plane descend while fighting the canopy. Various disqualifying medical conditions and prohibited prescription drugs didn't help.

The second case involved Jesse, a POA moderator. He lost the canopy on his Fly Baby. Fortunately, it cleared the tail and he landed normally.

Ron Wanttaja
 
MBDiagMan said:
One more reason to fly certified aircraft.
Click to expand...
Only if you like paying 10x the cost to fly. Let's not pretend that certified aircraft don't have accidents as well. I'll take a newer homebuilt with a proven track record from recent flight testing over a clapped out airplane that was certified 60 years ago any day.
 
Last edited:
Glad you have what you want. My 50 and 70 year old airplanes are tried and true, kept in top shape with thorough annual inspections. I think you need to analyze your math skills. Would you like to show some real world, apples to apples used market numbers that are ten to one?

The wonderful thing is that you get to choose to risk your life in your experimental, built in a shed stuff and I get to choose my solid, tried and true factory built and supported aircraft for my own purposes.

Sounds like we’re both happy with our choices. I wish you the very best of luck.
 
kmacht said:
The canopy latching mechanism was not per the Sonex design. The original builder did what they call the swing back canopy mod.
Click to expand...

Quick correction. The Sonex that is the subject of this thread did have a side mounted canopy and not the swing back modification. Look at the photo in post # 15 and look at it in the attached video. It does appear to have the latch modification to hold the canopy slightly open for ground ops but it is secured on the passenger side per a piano hinge as shown in the plans.

Mike’s Sonex canopy (post # 12) was a swing back version and the dangers of such a mod are pretty evident.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Glad you have what you want. My 50 and 70 year old airplanes are tried and true, kept in top shape with thorough annual inspections. I think you need to analyze your math skills. Would you like to show some real world, apples to apples used market numbers that are ten to one?

The wonderful thing is that you get to choose to risk your life in your experimental, built in a shed stuff and I get to choose my solid, tried and true factory built and supported aircraft for my own purposes.

Sounds like we’re both happy with our choices. I wish you the very best of luck.
Click to expand...
My math skills are just fine. I didn’t say it was 10x cheaper to buy, just 10x cheaper to own. Overall acquisition and ownership costs combined are close to 10x less than many common certified airplanes. Here are my real world numbers. I built my A model Sonex for less than 15k including the engine and panel. It burns slightly less than 4gph of mogas (or 100LL). Oil is $6 a quart from the local NAPA and I burn 1 quart every 100 hours if that. Yearly condition inspections are free as I have the repairman’s certificate from building and any parts that need to be replaced I can fabricate and install myself. A complete overhaul of my motor is less than $1500. Cylinders with pistons and rings are $150 each. Heads are $300. If the crank needs to be replaced it’s $800 for a brand new one. An entirely brand new engine can be bought for less than 8K. The airplane is made of 6061 which is far more corrosion resistant than the 2024 many others use so no need to pay for a hanger. It was parked outside for 7 years with just a canopy cover and has zero corrosion anywhere. Two of those years it wasn’t flown at all and the location was 30 miles from the ocean with all 4 New England seasons. A tie down is $55 a month vs $600 for a hanger in my area. Insurance is $450 a year for liability. I don’t have hull insurance because the plane does not have enough value to justify it.

The flip side is that it took me many years to build and it is completely on me to make sure that the airplane is airworthy. There is nobody looking over my shoulder or requiring design analysis for any modification or change I may make (like the accident airplane did with the swing back canopy). The airplane is stupid cheap to fly and own but you need to really think about unintended consequences when deviating even slightly from the plans. With a certified airplane all that analysis is done for you but that is also why certified parts cost a fortune.

My point is that both experimental and certified aircraft have their advantages and disadvantages. Neither is better or worse because of the certification process they go through and neither should be put down as a whole as there is such variety of both types out there. Go buy and fly what you want as long as you can afford and enjoy it what’s the difference
 
Daleandee said:
Quick correction. The Sonex that is the subject of this thread did have a side mounted canopy and not the swing back modification. Look at the photo in post # 15 and look at it in the attached video. It does appear to have the latch modification to hold the canopy slightly open for ground ops but it is secured on the passenger side per a piano hinge as shown in the plans.

Mike’s Sonex canopy (post # 12) was a swing back version and the dangers of such a mod are pretty evident.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that? The original discussion on the sonex forum a few years back had the builder say they incorporated the swing back mod. Maybe the new owner changed it back? Both versions use the double legged angle so you can prop the canopy open while taxiing. I agree that the video looks like it’s a side tilt though.
 
Hmmmmm….. I’m still trying to find 10 to 1.

My Cessna 140 is a rough equivalent, with a few exceptions of course, like doors on both sides, capacity for two large people, an IFR panel to include a 430 and ADS-B transponder. 5.5 GPH vs 4, $45,000 (that’s the offer I turned down for it recently)vs your $15,000 (oh, wait a minute, if you built it, you must be considering your time to be worth zero.), engine rebuild $15,000 vs. $8,000 I think you said,….. I’m having a tough time finding ten to one in these numbers, but maybe it’s because I’m an engineer so must not know much about numbers. Oh, I forgot about the $6 vs $10 oil. Is that ten to one?
 
Last edited:
Pilot:Hello, ACME aircraft insurance. I crashed my my plane and need to make a claim.
ACME: Anyone injured?
Pilot: No, but the plane is damaged bad.
ACME: we will write you a check.

Saving the souls on board is your prime objective in an emergency.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Hmmmmm….. I’m still trying to find 10 to 1.

My Cessna 140 is a rough equivalent, with a few exceptions of course, like doors on both sides, capacity for two large people, an IFR panel to include a 430 and ADS-B transponder. 5.5 GPH vs 4, $45,000 (that’s the offer I turned down for it recently)vs your $15,000 (oh, wait a minute, if you built it, you must be considering your time to be worth zero.), engine rebuild $15,000 vs. $8,000 I think you said,….. I’m having a tough time finding ten to one in these numbers, but maybe it’s because I’m an engineer so must not know much about numbers. Oh, I forgot about the $6 vs $10 oil. Is that ten to one?
Click to expand...
You are comparing your $15000 overhaul cost to the $8000 cost for a completely new engine which is not a valid comparison. Overhaul costs for an aerovee are closer to $1500. How much are you paying for 100ll at 5gph vs mogas at 3.8gph? How much is the STC to allow you to run mogas if you wanted to? You also didn’t include the cost of your annuals or parts you have had to buy for it since owning it. How much is a new windshield to buy and have installed? It’s $400 for the sonex canopy and doesn’t require paying an A&P to install. No I don’t factor in my time. Do you charge yourself an hourly rate for all your hobbies? Those years building were because I too am an engineer and I like building things. It was a hobby to do after dinner or free time on the weekends.

All those incremental cost differences anbove add up over time and will get you to that 10:1 number for many similar airplanes (not all). In the end it really doesn’t matter though as long as you like what you fly. As I said, both have their advantages and disadvantages and shouldn't be dismissed as a whole.
 
The Sonex's fuselage is a lifting body, so I imagine having a broken canopy results in a fairly significant reduction in lift.
 
kmacht said:
Are you sure about that?
Click to expand...

Yulp ... here's a snapshot from the other video showing the pilot holding the canopy open after landing. It's clear that it is hinged on the passenger (right) side of the cockpit.


1723573078164.png
 
CaptainXap said:
The Sonex's fuselage is a lifting body, so I imagine having a broken canopy results in a fairly significant reduction in lift.
Click to expand...

Correct. Add to that all the drag when the tailcone is exposed to the wind ...
 
kmacht said:
You are comparing your $15000 overhaul cost to the $8000 cost for a completely new engine which is not a valid comparison. Overhaul costs for an aerovee are closer to $1500. How much are you paying for 100ll at 5gph vs mogas at 3.8gph? How much is the STC to allow you to run mogas if you wanted to? You also didn’t include the cost of your annuals or parts you have had to buy for it since owning it. How much is a new windshield to buy and have installed? It’s $400 for the sonex canopy and doesn’t require paying an A&P to install. No I don’t factor in my time. Do you charge yourself an hourly rate for all your hobbies? Those years building were because I too am an engineer and I like building things. It was a hobby to do after dinner or free time on the weekends.

All those incremental cost differences anbove add up over time and will get you to that 10:1 number for many similar airplanes (not all). In the end it really doesn’t matter though as long as you like what you fly. As I said, both have their advantages and disadvantages and shouldn't be dismissed as a whole.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…. I’m still feverishly searching for your 10 to one contrast. A new Continental O200 is not available but if it were, it wouldn’t cost $80,000. BTW what is the TBO on your engine?

Okay 3.8 times $3.00 = $11.40, 5.5 x $5.29 = $29.09. Is THAT ten to one?

My annual was about twice as much as usual this year because I needed a whole new exhaust. The annual was $1300 and change which covers an oil and filter, air filter and the like. Done by one of the very best aircraft maintenance facilities anywhere and I am fortunate enough that they are right next door. I’m very happy to pay it. Both of my airplanes are solid, well maintained and require very little beyond maintenance..

I’m still waiting for you to show ANY of the cost deltas to be ten to one.
 
Last edited:
wanttaja said:
DCA13WA007 features a Boeing 737 listed as amateur-built, in the NTSB records. Do a CAROL search for "Boeing" with the "Amateur-Built" flag turned on.

Also:


Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Indonesian plane and report. Someone miscoded it.

"On October 19, 2012, Sriwijaya Air flight SJ182, a Boeing 737-4Q8, registration PK-CKN (msn 26281 built 1992), sustained damage after it overran the runway on landing at Supadio Airport, Pontianak, Indonesia, and reportedly suffered a nose undercarriage collapse. The 160 passengers and crew were uninjured in the accident that occured in daylight (1645L) but in heavy rain and with thunderstorm activity in the vicinity of the airport. The passenger flight originated in Jakarta.
\n
\nThe incident is being investigated by the KNKT of Indonesia (www.dephub.go.id). In accordance with ICAO Annex 13, the U.S. has appointed an accredited representative as State of Manufacture and Design of the airplane. -",

en.wikipedia.org

Sriwijaya Air Flight 182 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Daleandee said:
1723573078164.png
Click to expand...


I have a question that sort of takes this discussion off track a little, and I apologize for that. Also not intentionally directed to any person.

I look at the above picture and can't help but wonder. Let us assume this plane, or another make of airplane with a hatch that opens upward for egress makes an unscheduled off aiport landing in the New Mexico bad lands, and stops upside down. The sound and smell of leaking fuel is strong, nauseatingly strong. Now for the question: How do we get out if the hatch opens upward but now upward is being blocked by Mother Earth.??

Personally this is the type of plane design, either amateur built or certified, that I would stay out of.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Hmmm…. I’m still feverishly searching for your 10 to one contrast. A new Continental O200 is not available but if it were, it wouldn’t cost $80,000. BTW what is the TBO on your engine?

Okay 3.8 times $3.00 = $11.40, 5.5 x $5.29 = $29.09. Is THAT ten to one?

My annual was about twice as much as usual this year because I needed a whole new exhaust. The annual was $1300 and change which covers an oil and filter, air filter and the like. Done by one of the very best aircraft maintenance facilities anywhere and I am fortunate enough that they are right next door. I’m very happy to pay it. Both of my airplanes are solid, well maintained and require very little beyond maintenance..

I’m still waiting for you to show ANY of the cost deltas to be ten to one.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how much clearer can make it for you. It isn't one single cost that's 10x, it's all the incremental costs as they add up over time. Thar $1300 a year annual times 10 years is $13,000 dollars compared to my zero dollar cost over that sane period. That gas cost of $30 vs $12 times 1000 hours across those same 10 years is a $18,000 difference and so on and so on. If you can't understand that costs are cumulative over time then there is no point in continuing this conversation with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top