J.Denver and the Sad Irony of Hordeing Gasoline
nat...@wwisp.com
Today the NTSB made a preliminary statement as to the cause of the John
Denver crash in the Pacific Ocean.
The NTSB stated that: The fuel tanks on his airplane were apparently bone
dry! (He ran out of gasoline!)
It was a sad, needless, and tragic loss to his family. But there is some
degree of Irony, in that during the infamous "fuel shortage" of the early
1970's, Mr. Denver had enormous storage tanks installed on his Colorado
property to hold a rumored 30,000 gallons of gasoline for his own private
use.
What a shame. What a senseless tragedy!
Roswell
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Christopher Davis
nat> == nataero <nat...@wwisp.com>
nat> The NTSB stated that: The fuel tanks on his airplane were
nat> apparently bone dry! (He ran out of gasoline!)
Remember, folks, the three most useless things in aviation are:
1) altitude above you
2) runway behind you
3) fuel in the truck (or underground storage tank or whatever)
--
Christopher Davis <c...@kei.com> <URL: http://www.kei.com/homepages/ckd/ >
Geographic locations in DNS! <URL: http://www.kei.com/homepages/ckd/dns-loc/ >
National Aero Safety
Rich Ahrens wrote:
> Christopher Davis (c...@loiosh.kei.com) spilled onto his/her news
> spool:
> : Remember, folks, the three most useless things in aviation are:
> : 1) altitude above you
> : 2) runway behind you
> : 3) fuel in the truck (or underground storage tank or whatever)
>
> You forgot:
>
> 4) Roswell
>
> ----------
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> |Rich Ahrens | Homepage: http://www.visi.com/~rma/
> |
> |r...@visi.com
> |----------------------------------------------|
> |"In a world full of people only some want to fly - isn't that
> crazy?"|
> --------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
OOPS,
You're not the Tail Gunner that I was thinking of. I had you mixed up
with Ryan Healy, the guy with the Kitty Cat!
You're the Alaskan Wannabe, who looks like wierd Al Yankovich!
Sorry Rich, but you know how it is, 6 of one, half dozen of another. Go
figure which smart mouth it is? You are all so much alike!
Roswell
National Aero Safety
Rich Ahrens wrote:
> Christopher Davis (c...@loiosh.kei.com) spilled onto his/her news
> spool:
> : Remember, folks, the three most useless things in aviation are:
> : 1) altitude above you
> : 2) runway behind you
> : 3) fuel in the truck (or underground storage tank or whatever)
>
> You forgot:
>
> 4) Roswell
>
> ----------
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> |Rich Ahrens | Homepage: http://www.visi.com/~rma/
> |
> |r...@visi.com
> |----------------------------------------------|
> |"In a world full of people only some want to fly - isn't that
> crazy?"|
> --------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
How's it going Tail Gunner? Where have you been hiding, boy? Never a
dull moment when you're around. Party on Dude!
Roswell
BrokenSpar
In my opinion it wasn't the running out of fuel that killed JD...he stopped
flying the aircraft, distraction from that is what caused his death.
John W. Irwin
BrokenSpar wrote:
> In my opinion it wasn't the running out of fuel that killed JD...he stopped
> flying the aircraft, distraction from that is what caused his death.
Amen to that. We had an experienced tow pilot and glider pilot go up to test
a homebuilt. He had partial power loss very soon after takeoff, after which he
totally stopped flying the aircraft. He turned away from an easy dead stick on
the field, went into panic mode, stalled, spun, crashed, and burned in front of
a dozen witnesses.
In military flying school, we practiced engine failures and flameouts until we
were absolutely sick of them. I'm sure it saved some lives. I know it did
mine when I lost power in a TriPacer right after takeoff. I shredded the wheel
pants landing in a stubble field, but I walked away and later flew the plane
back out of the field.
--
John W. Irwin
Praying is like a rocking chair-- it'll give you something
to do, but it won't get you anywhere.
[Gypsy Rose Lee]
John Weiss
SteveM8597 wrote:
>
> >The NTSB stated that: The fuel tanks on his airplane were apparently bone
> >dry! (He ran out of gasoline!)
>
> vertically into the ocean? The doesn't stop flying when the engine quits tho
> it does fly a whole lot slower!! I would have thought John could have glided
> to a relatively safe belly landing on the beach with a plnae that is almost
> stall proof, rather than diving straight down into the water. I like the
> birdstrike theory better.
The local Seattle paper posted a retraction by an NTSB "spokesman," who
said the 'out of gas' report was only one of several possibilities still
under review.
At any rate, the first thing I thought of when I read 'out of gas' and
remembered 'vertical dive' into the water was "suicide"...
Matt Clonfero
Christopher Davis <c...@loiosh.kei.com> wrote:
>Remember, folks, the three most useless things in aviation are:
>
>1) altitude above you
>2) runway behind you
>3) fuel in the truck (or underground storage tank or whatever)
Indeed, the only time you can have too much fuel is when the aircraft is
on fire.
Aetherem Vincere
Matt.
--
================================================================================
Matt Clonfero: Ma...@aetherem.demon.co.uk | To Err is Human
My employers and I have a deal - They don't | To forgive is not Air Force Policy
speak for me, and I don't speak for them. | -- Anon, ETPS
Charles K. Scott
In article <EJyCx...@news.boeing.com>
John Weiss <John.R.Weiss@Boeing.*NOSPAM*.com> writes:
> The local Seattle paper posted a retraction by an NTSB "spokesman," who
> said the 'out of gas' report was only one of several possibilities still
> under review.
It's kind of hard to follow this thing in such a non hard fact manner.
Are you saying that the NTSB did not say that the tanks were dry, only
that it was a possibility they were investigating?
Thanks, Corky Scott
Orval R. Fairbairn
In article <EJyCx...@news.boeing.com>, John Weiss
<John.R.Weiss@Boeing.*NOSPAM*.com> wrote:
> SteveM8597 wrote:
> >
> > >The NTSB stated that: The fuel tanks on his airplane were apparently bone
> > >dry! (He ran out of gasoline!)
> >
> > Am I the only one who finds it strange that a plane like a Long Ez dove
> > vertically into the ocean? The doesn't stop flying when the engine
quits tho
> > it does fly a whole lot slower!! I would have thought John could have
glided
> > to a relatively safe belly landing on the beach with a plnae that is almost
> > stall proof, rather than diving straight down into the water. I like the
> > birdstrike theory better.
>
> The local Seattle paper posted a retraction by an NTSB "spokesman," who
> said the 'out of gas' report was only one of several possibilities still
> under review.
There is a thread in the rec.aviation.homebuilt NG. According to the
thread, the plane's tank selector was located in a non-standard position,
ABOVE the PILOT's LEFT SHOULDER, requiring him to take his right hand off
the right-side mounted stick, reach over his left shoulder and turn the
valve. In addition, apparently the valve was difficult to turn, so JD
borrowed a vise-grips prior to flight.
The scenario built up has him cooking along at 3-500 ft AGL, the tank
burns off, he takes his hand off the stick to get the valve, it doesn't
turn. He now gets the vise grips and pays attention to turning the valve,
while the plane drifts off. It can happen to any of us!
--
To e-mail me remove "spamsux_" from my address
Board member, Ca Pilots' Assn, CRAMP,
EAA Life member
Johnson Rocket Restoration Flying
Mustang IIR under construction
SteveM8597
John Weiss
Orval R. Fairbairn wrote:
> >
> > The local Seattle paper posted a retraction by an NTSB "spokesman," who
> > said the 'out of gas' report was only one of several possibilities still
> > under review.
>
> There is a thread in the rec.aviation.homebuilt NG. According to the
> thread, the plane's tank selector was located in a non-standard position,
> ABOVE the PILOT's LEFT SHOULDER, requiring him to take his right hand off
> the right-side mounted stick, reach over his left shoulder and turn the
> valve. In addition, apparently the valve was difficult to turn, so JD
> borrowed a vise-grips prior to flight.
>
> The scenario built up has him cooking along at 3-500 ft AGL, the tank
> burns off, he takes his hand off the stick to get the valve, it doesn't
> turn. He now gets the vise grips and pays attention to turning the valve,
> while the plane drifts off. It can happen to any of us!
Waitaminutehere! Should JD be nominated for the Darwin Award?
IIRC, it was his first flight in the newly-acquired airplane. Now
you're telling me he was cruising at 3-500' over the water on an
[almost] empty tank with a non-standard AND defective fuel selector
valve?!? On second thought, the altitude is inconsistent with the
previously mentioned 'vertical dive'...
John Weiss
From the CNN web site:
SAN FRANCISCO (CNN) --
Investigators are looking into
several causes for the plane
crash that killed singer John
Denver, including the possibility
that his plane ran out of gas, a
spokesman for the National Transportation Safety
Board said.
A San Francisco television station reported Wednesday
that Denver may have crashed while trying to switch
from one fuel tank to another. Both tanks were empty,
KRON reported.
"It could be as simple as that," George Petterson, the
NTSB's lead investigator in the case, said in a
written
statement. Officials also are investigating the
weather,
Denver's training and performance as a pilot and the
construction of the privately built Long EZ aircraft
he
was flying.
Charles K. Scott wrote:
>
> In article <EJyCx...@news.boeing.com>
> John Weiss <John.R.Weiss@Boeing.*NOSPAM*.com> writes:
>
> > The local Seattle paper posted a retraction by an NTSB "spokesman," who
> > said the 'out of gas' report was only one of several possibilities still
> > under review.
>
> It's kind of hard to follow this thing in such a non hard fact manner.
> Are you saying that the NTSB did not say that the tanks were dry, only
> that it was a possibility they were investigating?
>
> Thanks, Corky Scott
--
john.r...@boeing.com (Notice: *NOSPAM*. in reply address)
Scientific Computing Development (47deg29'32"N/122deg12'05"W)
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
Paul Tomblin
In a previous article, John Weiss <John.R.Weiss@Boeing.*NOSPAM*.com> said:
>Waitaminutehere! Should JD be nominated for the Darwin Award?
>
>IIRC, it was his first flight in the newly-acquired airplane. Now
>you're telling me he was cruising at 3-500' over the water on an
>[almost] empty tank with a non-standard AND defective fuel selector
>valve?!? On second thought, the altitude is inconsistent with the
>previously mentioned 'vertical dive'...
Actually, he flew some touch and goes the day before, and had a checkout from
the previous owner. He was 3-500' over the water because he was climbing out
of an airport, so don't make a big deal about that. However, if he *was*
stupid enough to take off without checking either tank, then I'd support the
nomination.
--
Paul Tomblin (ptom...@xcski.com) I don't buy from spammers.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,
for there you have been, there you long to return." -- Leonardo da Vinci.
Charles K. Scott
In article <EJyyy...@news.boeing.com>
John Weiss <John.R.Weiss@Boeing.*NOSPAM*.com> writes:
> Waitaminutehere! Should JD be nominated for the Darwin Award?
>
> IIRC, it was his first flight in the newly-acquired airplane. Now
> you're telling me he was cruising at 3-500' over the water on an
> [almost] empty tank with a non-standard AND defective fuel selector
> valve?!? On second thought, the altitude is inconsistent with the
> previously mentioned 'vertical dive'...
The person who initiated or repeated the story about Denver being out
of gas is mistaken, he wasn't. He had 15 gallons in his tanks prior to
taking off (report of conversation between John Denver and Line boy)
and was in the air for only around half an hour. 15 gallons in this
airplane is enough for around 2 hours of flying.
Besides, the NTSB has already stated that the damage to the prop is
indicative of the kind of damage that occurs when the prop hits the
water while the engine is making power.
Let's not forget that this airplane had been flying for a number of
years with the switch exactly where it was when Mr. Denver flew it.
Also, this was not his first flight in the airplane and he'd been
checked out in Long EZE's to the satisfaction of the instructor.
The nice thing about the net is that you can get information REAL
quickly. The bad thing about the net is that you can get information
REAL quickly; so quickly it's not checked out.
Corky Scott
Dr. Johan Fourie
Just to confirm that a 11 DME gap between a C172 Cutlass landing behind
a Jumbo 747 may still be a borderline case.
I was cleared on a long finals number 2 behind a 747 landing in Cape
Town South Africa yesterday with the normal warning from ATC about wake
turbulence when that little Cessna was rolled with nearly full opposite
control in first one and then again in the opposite direction. My
instructor (was doing a conversion) and I were more or less plastered
against the roof somewhere for a moment or two. This was followed by a
complete engine failure on touchdown which was the result of a fuelline
blockage (confirmed) and (this part is a guess) may have been the result
of some muck shaking loose somewhere. As I see this we were indeed
fortunate to have an engine for the remaining 11 miles?
Reply to:
j...@maties.sun.ac.za
Ralph Jones
nat...@wwisp.com wrote:
> Today the NTSB made a preliminary statement as to the cause of the
> John
> Denver crash in the Pacific Ocean.
>
> The NTSB stated that: The fuel tanks on his airplane were apparently
> bone
> dry! (He ran out of gasoline!)
>
> It was a sad, needless, and tragic loss to his family. But there is
> some
> degree of Irony, in that during the infamous "fuel shortage" of the
> early
> 1970's, Mr. Denver had enormous storage tanks installed on his
> Colorado
> property to hold a rumored 30,000 gallons of gasoline for his own
> private
> use.
Must have been a wicked commute: that would have driven my big old Chevy
Blazer about 360,000 miles.
Actually it was about 500 gallons, your basic Montgomery Ward farm tank,
when he buried it. You could carry it empty in a station wagon or full
in a pickup. But every good story grows with the telling...
rj
Erik Shilling
I ave flown canard type aircraft, and there is no way that when loosing
an engine, fuel or otherwise, it would not cause the plane to go in
vertically.
I might be wrong, but is it possible that a wooden prop could have
thrown a blade which in turn yanked the engine out.
With a drastic CG change such as that, I am certain it would go in
vertically.
Erik Shilling
Kevin013
I happen to be a lifelong JD fan who pack many of his CD's in my glove
compartment for on-the-road entertainment.
HOWEVER, that doesn't mean I thought he could walk on water.
I'm a future pilot (the only thing standing between me and the nearest flight
school is $$$, or more accurately, lack thereof), and even *I* know you don't
leave the ground without checking the tanks!! :-)
Agreements and constructive criticisms welcome. Flames ignored.
Kevin W. Hecteman
kevi...@aol.com
"The legacy of the U.S. military is nothing less than your freedom."--Rush
Limbaugh
Gustavo Flores
In article <8799729...@dejanews.com> nat...@wwisp.com writes:
>From: nat...@wwisp.com
>Subject: J.Denver and the Sad Irony of Hordeing Gasoline
>Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:02:30 -0600
>Today the NTSB made a preliminary statement as to the cause of the John
>Denver crash in the Pacific Ocean.
>The NTSB stated that: The fuel tanks on his airplane were apparently bone
>dry! (He ran out of gasoline!)
>It was a sad, needless, and tragic loss to his family. But there is some
>degree of Irony, in that during the infamous "fuel shortage" of the early
>1970's, Mr. Denver had enormous storage tanks installed on his Colorado
>property to hold a rumored 30,000 gallons of gasoline for his own private
>use.
>What a shame. What a senseless tragedy!
>Roswell
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Correct hordeing to hoarding and it almost makes sense !
Well it was actually a hypocritical thing to do for such a presumed nature
loving, resource conserving, image guy, but he didn't have to die for it !
Contempt and scorn should have been enough punishment for the poor man.
Gustavo Flores
John
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BCF80D.99E33980
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> I ave flown canard type aircraft, and there is no way that when loosing
> an engine, fuel or otherwise, it would not cause the plane to go in
> vertically.
Did you mean this: "I have flown canard type aircraft, and there is no way
that when loosing an engine, fuel or otherwise, it would cause the plane to
go in vertically." It will not go vertical when the engine quits.
John
ja...@usa.net
Erik Shilling <eri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<655aod$a...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>...
------=_NextPart_000_01BCF80D.99E33980
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head></head><BODY bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><p><font size=3D3 =
color=3D"#000000" face=3D"Comic Sans MS">> I ave flown canard type =
aircraft, and there is no way that when loosing<br>> an engine, fuel =
or otherwise, <u>it would not cause the plane to go in<br>> =
vertically</u>.<br><br>Did you mean this: "I have flown canard type =
aircraft, and there is no way that when loosing an engine, fuel or =
otherwise, <u>it would cause the plane to go in vertically</u>." It =
will not go vertical when the engine quits.<br><br>John<br><font =
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>ja...@usa.net</u><font =
color=3D"#000000"><br><br><br><br>Erik Shilling <<font =
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>eri...@ix.netcom.com</u><font =
color=3D"#000000">> wrote in article <<font =
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>655aod$a...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com</u><font =
color=3D"#000000">>...<br>> I ave flown canard type aircraft, and =
there is no way that when loosing<br>> an engine, fuel or otherwise, =
it would not cause the plane to go in<br>> vertically.<br>> =
<br>> I might be wrong, but is it possible that a wooden prop could =
have<br>> thrown a blade which in turn yanked the engine out.<br>> =
<br>> With a drastic CG change such as that, I am certain it would go =
in<br>> vertically.<br>> <br>> Erik Shilling<br>> </p>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></body></html>
------=_NextPart_000_01BCF80D.99E33980--
Gord Beaman
--cut--
>
>> I ave flown canard type aircraft, and there is no way that when loosing
>> an engine, fuel or otherwise, it would not cause the plane to go in
>> vertically.
>
>Did you mean this: "I have flown canard type aircraft, and there is no way
>that when loosing an engine, fuel or otherwise, it would cause the plane to
>go in vertically." It will not go vertical when the engine quits.
>
>John
>ja...@usa.net
>
( my spell checker says both 'loosing' and 'losing' are correct...is it
nuts?).
--
Gord Beaman
PEI, Canada,
VE1EO.
Kelvin Okumura
|> >
|> >Did you mean this: "I have flown canard type aircraft, and there is no way
|> >that when loosing an engine, fuel or otherwise, it would cause the plane to
|> >go in vertically." It will not go vertical when the engine quits.
|> >
|> >John
|> >ja...@usa.net
|> >
|> Yes John that confused me too...I think you're right...
|> ( my spell checker says both 'loosing' and 'losing' are correct...is it
|> nuts?).
|> --
|> Gord Beaman
|> PEI, Canada,
|> VE1EO.
"Loosing" an engine would be correct if the engine departed the airframe.
Your spell checker is not nuts!
--
Kelvin Okumura Any opinions appearing in this document
Erik Shilling
In <65a13i$r...@nr1.calgary.istar.net> "John" <ja...@usa.net> writes:
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>------=_NextPart_000_01BCF80D.99E33980
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
loosing an engine, fuel or otherwise, it would not cause the plane to
go in vertically.
>
>Did you mean this: "I have flown canard type aircraft, and there is no
way that when loosing an engine, fuel or otherwise, it would cause the
plane to go in vertically." It will not go vertical when the engine
quits.
>
airplane held the control stick full back it would not go vertical nor
will it spin.
Erik Shilling
Charles K. Scott
In article <19971122004...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
kevi...@aol.com (Kevin013) writes:
> I'm a future pilot (the only thing standing between me and the nearest flight
> school is $$$, or more accurately, lack thereof), and even *I* know you don't
> leave the ground without checking the tanks!! :-)
Right, and he did. He reported 15 gallons in the tanks to the fuel guy
before he took off. He flew long enough to do three touch and go's and
then left the pattern and crashed shortly thereafter. He did not run
out of gas.
Corky Scott
Charles K. Scott
In article <65cbtl$h...@hpaneqb4.an.hp.com>
kel...@news.an.hp.com (Kelvin Okumura) writes:
>
> "Loosing" an engine would be correct if the engine departed the airframe.
> Your spell checker is not nuts!
Kelvin, I know this sounds crazy but a Long EZE pilot actually did
literally loose his entire engine when it shed a prop blade and then
shook out of it's mounts before the pilot could shut it down. I know
this sounds absolutely impossible but the pilot was able to dead stick
it down and walked from the landing.
Corky Scott
Charles K. Scott
In article <65h4t4$4r2$1...@gypsy.cad.gatech.edu>
gt6...@gypsy.cad.gatech.edu (Michael D. Knight) writes:
> I seem to even recall reading an account of someone flying a Long-EZ
> and accidently putting it into a spin that he was unable to recover
> from......but the rotation was so fast and the rate of descent so low
> that he impacted the ground and walked away....with only minor damage
> to the aircraft.
>
> Something is still missing here.
He didn't put it into a spin. No Rutan designed canard aircraft has
ever been put into a spin. What happened in the case you mentioned is
that the aircraft was put into a high angle of attack and the main wing
went into a partial, sometimes called "deep" stall. This resulted in
the airplane leveling out and dropping vertically. The descent was
stable but unrecoverable. The pilot attempted everything he could
think of to recover, including opening the canopy and leaning out over
the nose in an attempt to drop the nose and regain flying speed. No
luck. Later, at least one test pilot managed to regain flying speed
from a deep stall by simply going to full throttle and leaving it
there. Eventually the airplane gained enough forward speed for the
canard to operate and the nose was lowered and flying speed regained.
But in the case of the "deep stall", the initial problem resulted in a
vertical descent into a canal. There were injuries but not serious.
The second occasion the company that built the airplane went out over
the Atlantic a few miles and tried it themselves. They added gap seals
to the canard to see if this would increase it's effectiveness. It
did. The canard lifted the nose beyond angles possible before and the
airplane "deep stalled". The airplane descended vertically at a rate
considered by the test pilot to be survivable and he rode it into the
ocean. He did, of course, attempt to recover but could not. The
airplane was stable at all times, was horizontal but not spinning, just
coming down vertically. It impacted the ocean and the pilot was not
injured. The aircraft was towed to shore by a boat that watched it
come down. The only damage that occured to the airplane was when some
overzealous helpers on the beach pushed in the wrong places as they
dragged and pushed it onto the beach. The minor damage was repaired
and the airplane flew again a month later.
Changes were made to the wing and in the case of another canard type,
the canard was narrowed so as to limit it's ability to raise the nose.
Anyway, this type of descent isn't what occured to John Denver. I
still vote for the bird impact. It's the only theory that makes any
sense, to me.
Corky Scott
Gord Beaman
Carlo Kopp <Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
--cut--
>>
>Indeed. To get a proper vertical descent it almost looks that he would
>have had to have rolled himself inverted, and pulled his stick fully
>back to point the nose straight down. How otherwise would he get a
>vertical descent attitude from several hundred feet ?
>
>Carlo
--cut--
I don't understand this Carlo, why couldn't he have just poked the stick
forward?...why would he need to roll inverted?...the canard merely prevents
stalling the wing in normal flight by stalling first -- thus lowering the
nose doesn't it?...or am I missing something here?...(not unheard of
btw)...
Lee Green MD MPH
In article <347c4bc0...@news1.pei.sympatico.ca>,
gbe...@SPAMbigfoot.com wrote:
> --cut--
> I don't understand this Carlo, why couldn't he have just poked the stick
> forward?...
I suspect he did. Denver had recently lost his medical. He would not be
the first pilot to have an MI, fall forward, and nose into the ground.
--
Lee Green MD MPH Disclaimer: My postings are my doing, not
Family Practice a service of nor in any way the
University of Michigan responsibility of the University of
gre...@umichZ.edu Michigan.
KF8MO@W8PGW.#SEMICH.MI.USA.NA
Delete the Z from my e-mail address, it's just there to foil spambots.
PGP public key on MIT keyserver at
http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html
Carlo Kopp
Michael D. Knight wrote:
>
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> >I ave flown canard type aircraft, and there is no way that when loosing
> >an engine, fuel or otherwise, it would not cause the plane to go in
> >vertically.
>
> >thrown a blade which in turn yanked the engine out.
>
> >With a drastic CG change such as that, I am certain it would go in
> >vertically.
>
> agree, no matter what the amount of fuel in the aircraft, there is
> absolutely no reason for it to dive vertically....if eyewitness
> accounts of the accident are correct.
>
> Even if he did run out of fuel, most any aircraft (some more than
> others) are capable of gliding a fair distance without engine power.
> And if he did run out of fuel, and got distracted trying to figure out
> what happened, he *still* shouldn't have been able to stall that
> particular aircraft.
>
> By nature of its design, the Long-EZ is supposed to prevent a stall of
> the aft wing because the smaller canard will stall first and lower the
> AOA....but certainly not so much so it dives vertically.
>
> I seem to even recall reading an account of someone flying a Long-EZ
> and accidently putting it into a spin that he was unable to recover
> from......but the rotation was so fast and the rate of descent so low
> that he impacted the ground and walked away....with only minor damage
> to the aircraft.
>
> Something is still missing here.
>
have had to have rolled himself inverted, and pulled his stick fully
back to point the nose straight down. How otherwise would he get a
vertical descent attitude from several hundred feet ?
How much forward stick would he need in a Long-Eze to get the nose down
at max-G ?
How credible is the witness claiming a vertical descent ? Did the
witness see the descent head on, or from a beam position w.r.t. the
aircraft ?
You are quite right, something appears wrong here.
Cheers,
Carlo
Carlo Kopp
> >have had to have rolled himself inverted, and pulled his stick fully
> >back to point the nose straight down. How otherwise would he get a
> >vertical descent attitude from several hundred feet ?
> >
> --cut--
> I don't understand this Carlo, why couldn't he have just poked the stick
> stalling the wing in normal flight by stalling first -- thus lowering the
> nose doesn't it?...or am I missing something here?...(not unheard of
> btw)...
It depends on how quickly you want to assume a vertical nose down
attitude. I would be surprised if the LE has equal or greater elevator
authority node down, compared to node up. Also, unless it has a
symmetrical aerobatic wing, you will get better lifting characteristics
into a pitch up than a pitch down.
What seems odd to me is the claim of vertical descent fom such a low
altitude. Assuming he pushed the nose down, it would take him several
hundred feet of altitude surely to get an attitud change from level to
vertical nose down.
Cheers,
Carlo
Gord Beaman
>> forward?...why would he need to roll inverted?...the canard merely prevents
>> stalling the wing in normal flight by stalling first -- thus lowering the
>> nose doesn't it?...or am I missing something here?...(not unheard of
>> btw)...
>
>It depends on how quickly you want to assume a vertical nose down
>attitude. I would be surprised if the LE has equal or greater elevator
>authority node down, compared to node up. Also, unless it has a
>symmetrical aerobatic wing, you will get better lifting characteristics
>into a pitch up than a pitch down.
>
>What seems odd to me is the claim of vertical descent fom such a low
>altitude. Assuming he pushed the nose down, it would take him several
>hundred feet of altitude surely to get an attitud change from level to
>vertical nose down.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carlo
Maybe so...this is a _very different_ airframe we're talking about here,
one which I know very little about, ...it still 'feels' odd to me that it
might take that much altitude to achieve a vertical attitude, but maybe
so...
Cheers and beers!...
Gustavo Flores
In article <3478d7b0...@news1.pei.sympatico.ca> gbe...@SPAMpei.sympatico.ca (Gord Beaman) writes:
>From: gbe...@SPAMpei.sympatico.ca (Gord Beaman)
>Subject: Re: J.Denver and the Sad Irony of Hordeing Gasoline
>Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 01:31:43 GMT
>--cut--
> >
> >> I ave flown canard type aircraft, and there is no way that when loosing
> >> an engine, fuel or otherwise, it would not cause the plane to go in
> >> vertically.
> >
> >Did you mean this: "I have flown canard type aircraft, and there is no way
> >that when loosing an engine, fuel or otherwise, it would cause the plane to
> >go in vertically." It will not go vertical when the engine quits.
> >
> >John
> >ja...@usa.net
> >
>Yes John that confused me too...I think you're right...
>( my spell checker says both 'loosing' and 'losing' are correct...is it
>nuts?).
>--
>Gord Beaman
>PEI, Canada,
>VE1EO.
It is not nuts, both words exist albeit with different meanings
Losing means misplacing
Loosing means making not tight
Gustavo Flores ( A loose nut who loses arguments )
Gord Beaman
to...@iamerica.net (Gustavo Flores) wrote:
>
>Losing means misplacing
>Loosing means making not tight
>
>Gustavo Flores ( A loose nut who loses arguments )
After consideration doesn't 'loosing' mean releasing?...as in 'The bomber
was seen loosing a load of bombs'?...doesnt your description above (the
second one) describe the word 'loosening'?.
Ogden Johnson III
Gord Beaman (gbe...@SPAMpei.sympatico.ca) wrote:
: After consideration doesn't 'loosing' mean releasing?...as in 'The bomber
: was seen loosing a load of bombs'?...doesnt your description above (the
Here in the US we usually say 'dropping a load of bombs.'
HTH <g>
National Aero Safety
Charles K. Scott wrote:
Wait a second Corky. Did Mr. Denver "check" the tank gauge, or did he
manually "stick" the tanks? Are you saying that the NTSB was incorrect
in their statement? Please advise.
Roswell