oops

[Jim Peace]

https://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/2018/01/17/small-plane-crashes-in-parking-lot-of-santas-villege-in-sky-forest-no-major-injuries/

N5562Q

 

Edited January 18, 2018 by Jim Peace

[bradp]

Well that prop wasn’t turning.  Glad to see all were okay and the blue side stayed up. 

Is that blue patch behind the window painted?  

[Hank]

Switches and coal for him next year! The rest of the story should be interesting:  4 people, stopped prop, and everyone got out after an impact hard enough to buckle the rear fuselage.

I've seen planes with a fake third window painted on to look like a larger plane, but it's usually a darker color and not a Mooney . . .

Edited January 18, 2018 by Hank

[Skates97]

I'm interested to know what went wrong, whether it was something unforseen wrong with the plane,  something the pilot did/didn't do, or something the pilot should have caught ahead of time in preflight/run up. That plane was on my short list but I could not get the broker to return emails or any of the voicemails I left inquiring about it. I think perhaps they were already in the process of selling it to this individual as the registration changed about a month after my attempts to contact them. Regardless I'm glad I have the plane that I did buy in my hangar. 

[mooniac15u]

It looks like at least one and maybe both prop blades are bent forward.  That usually happens when the engine is making power.

[RLCarter]

15 minutes ago, mooniac15u said:

It looks like at least one and maybe both prop blades are bent forward.  That usually happens when the engine is making power.

Generally, but looking at the other damage it looks like it spun around and went backwards which would bend the blade forward also

[Bartman]

Yeah I was thinking it spun around on the ground too. Would explain the damage to the rear of the wings and flaps and one blade of the prop. But I don't think the prop was turning on contact because the tips would be bent

[mooniac15u]

7 minutes ago, Bartman said:

Yeah I was thinking it spun around on the ground too. Would explain the damage to the rear of the wings and flaps and one blade of the prop. But I don't think the prop was turning on contact because the tips would be bent

The tips bend backwards when the prop is windmilling.  The blades typically get a more gradual forward bend when the engine is making power.

[Bug Smasher]

It looks like they had very little space to work with, managed to miss trees, autos, structures, people on the ground, and made it in one piece without injury in a predominately wooded area. Seems the pilot did very well here and flew the airplane through the crash. I'm glad it worked out the way it did. Curious to know about the mechanical issue that put them in this bad situation.

[rbridges]

I was noticing how the empennage and cowling are crumpled, but the cockpit sheet metal is still pretty smooth.  Looks like the infamous steel cage kept everyone pretty well protected.

[Hank]

3 hours ago, mooniac15u said:

The tips bend backwards when the prop is windmilling.  The blades typically get a more gradual forward bend when the engine is making power.

The bottom blade is bent forward; the blade on the other side, turned slightly up, doesn't look bent at all . . . .

[mooniac15u]

Just now, Hank said:

The bottom blade is bent forward; the blade on the other side, turned slightly up, doesn't look bent at all . . . .

It's hard to tell on the other blade due to the angle of the photo.  Either way the tip isn't bent back.

[bradp]

This is the aft-ward curling seen with a prop that’s making power (from Wikipedia) 

 

[mooniac15u]

They can make a lot of interesting shapes when producing power.  They can bend forward because the blades flex forward towards the tips as they pull the plane.

 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, bradp said:

This is the aft-ward curling seen with a prop that’s making power (from Wikipedia) 

 

If it’s in wiki it must be true!

[bradp]

Haha.  Exactly.   Sad but true... when I started medical school, Wikipedia existed but you’d have your ass handed to you if you were caught looking up something medical on there.  Same thing with any other online “reference”. Then it was like a dirty little secret because most people were doing it as the quality improved.  Coincidently online references became the go to source material for medical cornucopia.  Same thing in grad school looking up genes and proteins and such (there were more nerdy contributors in grad school).  Now if there’s a rare syndrome or something I’ve got to look up it’s generally an accepted source at least for the “what in the world is this thing” type questions.  The quality is actually half way descent and it’s mostly referenced.  

It seems good enough to find an example of blade curling.  

[Yetti]

Making power or the air frame moving forward

 

[Bartman]

I am not and NTSB accident investigator. I know very little about wingtip curling, but I could see how the tips flex forward under power and that actually makes sense if I think about it. However, if I were trying to land my crippled aircraft in a parking lot I do not think I would be under power. It looks to me like the aircraft spun around and ran into what looks like a dumpster with the aft portion of the right wing. The right wing is raised as is the prop blade on the right. The prop blade on the left is in contact with the pavement and if sliding backwards can produce a deformation in the forward direction. I'm not arguing or anything, but that's what I see.

All of this is irrelevant and the most important thing is everyone WALKED AWAY and only minor injuries. We do not know what was the cause and fuel issues are high on the list with 4 on board, but based on what I see it was not a takeoff phase of flight issue.  Regardless of the cause it looks like the pilot did a great job putting her down in one piece. 

[Niko182]

4 hours ago, mooniac15u said:

They can make a lot of interesting shapes when producing power.  They can bend forward because the blades flex forward towards the tips as they pull the plane.

 

I think it really depends on the angle of impact. If you flare hard enough, itll probably bend forward. if not, probably backwards. I doubt the prop was spinning on that aircraft. only one blade looks damaged and the prop was probably vertical during impact, causing one blade to hit, and if it was spinning, it would have probably been damaged way worse than that.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Niko182

[carusoam]

There are two versions I have seen of prop curling...

1) a failed go around, high powered, with the prop taking bites out of the runway... prop tips grab the pavement while pulling forwards, causing the forward type curl...

2) a GU landing, low powered, the prop tips hitting the ground acting like a brake... the final insult to the prop is one blade usually gets bent more than the others...

 

Do we know if this pilot is an MSer?

It would be great to hear his story.  What worked and what didn't work...

Best regards,

-a-

Mike may want to be aware of this thread.... @mike_elliott

[carqwik]

Story suggests strong downdrafts and inability to climb...pilot purposely put the plane down....

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2018/01/mooney-m20e-super-21chaparral-n5562q.html

[Skates97]

I've flown over that area a lot and have been bounced around pretty good from time to time, and I am always at 9,000+ heading through there. If he took off from San Bernardino I seriously doubt he was up that high, it's tucked up pretty close to the mountains. Factor in that he was heading to Big Bear and he just might have been trying to squeak over to ridge. Close to the ground flying over that area is not a place I would want to find myself.

[steingar]

Forced down by downdrafts?  In an E?  Forced down by four gigantor occupants and full tanks I'll bet.

[kortopates]

The final accident report was recently released. @Skates97  nailed it, the pilot was trying to squeak over the ridge line. This comes from both the video and the telling witness account: "According to one of the passengers, he heard three lengthened aural warnings prior to impact that were later determined to be the airplane's stall warning horn. The first lasted about 4 to 5 seconds, the second lasted about 3 to 4 seconds, and the third started as they crested the ridge and continued until impact."

There was nothing mechanically wrong nor was the plane really over gross (only 20 gal of gas), but it was loaded near max gross weight with its CG forward of the forward limit for the weight which raises the stalls speed. While the pilot estimated crossing the ridgeline at 1000' AGL where it encountered a downdraft leading to stall the NTSB using  the video evidence concluded that the E model was more likely at only about 50' agl trying to cross the ridgeline and stalled out at 25' agl.

Luckily only the pilot was seriously injured, one pax had minor injuries and 2 other had none. 

The NTSB's estimated Wt & Bal calculations below: It makes an interesting point that even with 390 pounds in the back seat that the aft weight alone wasn't sufficient to pull the CG back closer to the min 45.5" required for the weight and there wasn't much fuel weight to help in that regard either and what little fuel was being burning off. In truth though, the FAA used the most forward position on the seat which probably exaggerating how forward the CG was by about an inch or more. Thank goodness we can all do wt & bal calculations on our phone and tablets these days to avoid this. if the pilot was aware he might have had the front pax change places with the lighter pax in the back. Moving only 65 lbs back wouldn't have changed the outcome but it might have helped a little. The pilot really couldn't have made this work with the 3 pax.

 

From NTSB report 

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The pilot's failure to establish the proper airspeed after departure and to maintain adequate clearance from a ridgeline in high-density and downdraft conditions and his subsequent exceedance of the airplane's critical angle of attack, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall with insufficient altitude to recover. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's inadequate preflight weight and balance calculations, which failed to take into account the gross weight, high-altitude conditions, and center of gravity limit. 

Findings

Aircraft
Angle of attack - Capability exceeded (Cause)
Altitude - Not attained/maintained (Cause)
CG/weight distribution - Capability exceeded (Factor)
Maximum weight - Not specified (Factor)

Personnel issues
Flight planning/navigation - Pilot (Cause)
Aircraft control - Pilot (Cause)
Weight/balance calculations - Pilot (Factor)

Environmental issues
Downdraft - Effect on operation
High density altitude - Effect on operation

[cliffy]

We wreck them faster than we can build them!

Mr. Fox, your phone is ringing  :-)  :-)

Many years ago there was a flying group (Bonanzas) from the San Fernando Valley in LA that did formation flights to Fox Field out near Mojave for weekend breakfasts. One particular morning the lead aircraft lead the flight (5, IIRC) up a canyon that they could not climb over. They all bit the dirt.