B52 Crash [Archive]

Rob AR

Aug 31, 2004, 12:45 PM

I have just been sent a video of the crash. I will load it onto my web site when i get home. Look after 20.00 tonight it will be on the video page. If i get any others i will post them as well.

Its terrible but a must see at the same time.

I saw it from the Pylon race line the other end of the airfield. It looked then like thumb trouble and looks even more like it now that i have see itr on video.

www.teambanana.co.uk

GaryMC1

Aug 31, 2004, 03:28 PM

Thanks for the video, Rob. That is seriously sad. I can't believe that it went in. I really feel bad for the team that put it together.

Gary

gigman

Aug 31, 2004, 04:40 PM

how much do you think it cost!!

Philip Thulin

Aug 31, 2004, 04:53 PM

how much do you think it cost!!

you dont wanna know...

Fredrik W

Aug 31, 2004, 05:05 PM

how much do you think it cost!!
Not much, I have read that the hole damn plane was sponsored down to the smallest bolt. :rolleyes:

// Fredrik Wergeland
Sweden
www.flyingmodels.org (http://www.flyingmodels.org)
The Great Electric Motor Test (http://www.flyingmodels.org/motortest/Link_e.htm)

marshallcowboy

Aug 31, 2004, 05:06 PM

Slips on the black band on my TX
MC
Sad very sad to see a beautiful plane like that go down.

MrClean

Aug 31, 2004, 05:25 PM

I got these pics from a buddy of mine of the same plane it is huge!

Soar Dude

Dude, WAS is the operative word.

I hate to hear of a plane crash, but I'm dang glad they got the video!!!

If it's gonna crash, I wanna watch it!

Hogster

Aug 31, 2004, 07:24 PM

Where's this video then mate? ;)

More info:

http://rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244337

Second page and onward ....

Byam Wight

Aug 31, 2004, 09:29 PM

My two bobs worth, I just wonder if the driver lost orientation, it can appear to be banking towards you when in fact its going away. It could explain the spiral in as he thought he was on full opposite when in fact he was only making it worse.

Thomas Manson

Sep 01, 2004, 01:16 AM

unbeliveable, that was quite a crash!!

Realy Sad though, this model seemed to have a fair ammount of fame...

Did anything at all survive?

willhicks

Sep 01, 2004, 06:48 AM

I wonder if the TX antenna was extended.......

Will
willstech.com

Hogster

Sep 01, 2004, 06:06 PM

If any of you are like me, and are wondering where the crash video is, I've found it in another thread:

http://rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2581368&postcount=279

Edit: Just watched it .... gawd I feel ill :( :( .... watch the second linked video - you get a better feel for the size of the model.

gigman

Sep 01, 2004, 10:09 PM

msta been like 10 grand WOW

GaryMC1

Sep 01, 2004, 10:32 PM

Prices I've seen quoted were $19,000 for the fuselage, and another $15,000 on top of that for the engines. So, about $34,000. Could buy a real nice Lexus for the price of that plane.

I wonder if you can get insurance for something like that?

Gary

GaryMC1

Sep 01, 2004, 10:38 PM

What I can't understand is what happened. It looked like he had it under total control, and when he banked to the right for the second turn, it just kept on going. That certainly didn't appear to be a departure stall, and, to me, there appeared to be plenty of time to roll it back to the left before it nosed down.

Gordon, if you're following these threads, my deepest condolences. She was a beauty.

Gary

Haldor

Sep 02, 2004, 03:22 AM

Hard to tell exaclty what went wrong but the plane had just levelled of for a downwind pass, staying level for a second then the it start to roll to the right - seemingly in a continous manner untill it hit the ground. While the plane appear to be attempting a pullout I think it pitches up due to accumulated speed (trim) and not pilot control, indicating loss of control/RF link.
I would assume that the turbines would spool down to idle/stop if failsafe kicked in - I assume a model this size use failsafe of some sort. I could not detect any spooldown of the turbines.

See slight pitch down at 12:35:27 (timer visible on the larger video which includes takeoff)

Sad to see such a model crashing.. :(

Robert May

Sep 02, 2004, 04:19 AM

As part of a team that lost a 17ft B52 nearly 10 years ago now I know what Gordon must be feeling.

I have looked at the videos over and over (thanks for posting them guys) and they are almost identical to our crash the nose drops in the downwind turn and doesn't come up.

The video of our crash keeps being shown on Sky but we have not got a copy.

It took Chris over 12 months to build his and nearly 2 years to get over the crash.

regards

Robert

Edit What is Gordon doing to the aerial in frames @ 12:34:18 and 12:34:19?
The aerial isn't apparent after these shots but it might be the resolution on my laptop screen, can anyone see if its up or down on take off/

Robert May

Sep 02, 2004, 05:01 AM

Not much, I have read that the hole damn plane was sponsored down to the smallest bolt. :rolleyes:

// Fredrik Wergeland
Sweden
www.flyingmodels.org (http://www.flyingmodels.org)
The Great Electric Motor Test (http://www.flyingmodels.org/motortest/Link_e.htm)

Fredrik
I am struggling to understand your post.

Muxje

Sep 02, 2004, 06:50 AM

He probably means that they didn't lose any money on it, if everything was indeed sponsored.

They did lose the hours it took to build though! I can only imagine the effort it takes to get something like this planned, designed and build. :eek:

That's the reason I hate to see any model plane go down, be it an 8 engine B52 or someone's first trainer: not the money lost... but the loss of the time, effort and dedication we lavish on all our models. (unless you are flying ARFs :p )

Ron Laden

Sep 02, 2004, 07:57 AM

Very, sad indeed, you have to be pretty damn brave to take on a project like this one, and with even more pressure in the fact that you have sponsors involved.

I was very fortunate in seeing it part built in Gordons workshop and the scale and complexity of the build was quite staggering, not for the faint hearted.

Gordon and the team must be devistated and I feel very, very sorry for them.

Ron

Haldor

Sep 02, 2004, 09:13 AM

What is Gordon doing to the aerial in frames @ 12:34:18 and 12:34:19?
The aerial isn't apparent after these shots but it might be the resolution on my laptop screen, can anyone see if its up or down on take off/

He extends it to its full length.

Darkside

Sep 02, 2004, 11:01 AM

Couldn't it be loss of lift due to slow "real speed" on the downwind leg?

Berk

Sep 02, 2004, 11:22 AM

Here's a theory..... ;)

Shortly after takeoff , pilot notices a roll tendancy to left, and corrects this with right stick for the moment..

The first turn takes place, and whilst on the downwind leg, the pilot looks down at his TX to make trim alterations and check TX 'switch positions' :eek: :eek: :eek: ...

When he looks back up at the aircraft, it looks as if it has rolled to the left again,although it is actually banked over to the right, so right aileron is input to correct this, which takes the model way over it's critical bank angle and it spirals in...

In the absence of there being any telemetry on the aircraft, there can be only one outcome..

Verdict: Pilot Error.

Just my 'what could have happened' theory..

Regards,

Steve

Ken Lapointe

Sep 02, 2004, 12:02 PM

I agree with Berk.

Its a very dull grey plane on a very grey overcast day. Orientation is very hard on that plane. If you blink at the wrong gime and think its going right and turn it left its all over.

Almost all my planes have a different top and bottom scheme with strips for just that reason.

- Ken

Robert May

Sep 02, 2004, 12:21 PM

After our Big B52 crashed I put the dimensions,weight, control sizes and throws into a simulator. I could reproduce the crash every single time on the downwind turn. Once the nose drops there was no way of recovering without significant altitude. I put ours down to a stall followed by a stalled elevator or blown back elevator.

Our's, Gordon's and the one full sized at Fairchild AFB all stuck their noses down and crashed in what appears, in the 3 separate videos, to be exactly the same way.

I have watched this clip over and over, I was sure at first that that plane rolled right for the start of the downwind turn, now I am not so sure. Does it actually roll left away from Gordon?

At the time of our crash Mr Golds stated as the designer, builder and pilot of the plane he was was responsible for the crash. I am very glad he didn't take up stamp collecting as he threatened to do. 10 years later he is still not sure what the cause of the crash was and I don't think he/we ever will.

With planes that have been built and flown a million times before it might be appropriate to "blame" the pilot, but at this extreme of the hobby there are new boundaries to experience and explore. From the video there is no indication that there was anything wrong until it was unrecoverable.
"It looks alright " is all we have got to go on, we have not got airspeed indicators on our aircraft with telemetary to our transmitters so who can say what went wrong.

When/if a cause is found, it will be something for everyone to learn from not an excuse to apportion blame.

I hope that this forum will be used to learn from others misfortune rather than a place to get cheap thrills. Rest assured that the CAA and FAA will be reading this stuff, be very careful not to hand the Anti-RC flyers the ammunition they need to portray us as a dangerous sport which should be banned.

Ron Laden

Sep 02, 2004, 01:31 PM

Well it may be my old eyes but it looks to me as if the roll is to the left and not to the right, in which case it departed from its intended right hand circuit. When the wings are vertical the nacelles are to the right and the fin to the left with I think the tail closest to the pilot which would indicate it is rolling left.

It is difficult to see in detail and I could be wrong but having watched it numerous times I find it hard to see as righthand roll.

I have a slightly different recollection Robert of the day we witnessed Chris,s big B52 go in at Chivenor. I didnt think there was much bank on at the time, the plane having almost completed the turn, when it dropped its nose and flew down at about 30 degrees into the ground with the wings fairly level. I do accept though that my memory is not what it used to be.

I was convinced at the time and still am of the opinion that in Chris,s case it was either mechanical control or radio malfunction resulting in the loss of elevator. I have always suspected that the combined vibration of the eight IC fans possibly centered on either the elevator servo or its linkage and caused a major failure.

Whatever the causes still very sad in both cases.

Ron.

Robert May

Sep 02, 2004, 03:21 PM

Now I'm home and can see it full screen it is definately to the left.

Maybe someone in RC groups has managed to capture the Sky film, Last time I saw it it was on "Out there" a weird program about people who do stange things such as Cheese Rolling, Bog Snorkelling and Swinging.

There isn't much footage of the flight as the cameraman had trouble tracking a moving object but he did manage to get the impact

thunder1

Sep 02, 2004, 04:24 PM

Tarver330

Sep 02, 2004, 05:39 PM

Possible Explanation:

VMC Rollover. VMC is the "velocity minimum control". Below this speed, the plane is uncontrollable after an engine failure and will roll over towards the dead engines unless the nose is lowered. So, it's possible that 1 or more engines on the left wing flamed out and the airspeed deteriorated enough so that it rolled over. This can happen very quickly has caused many full scale multi-engine accidents. With only spoilers (I'm assuming this model had a scale control system), it would be virtually impossible to raise the wing at such a low altitude.

The airspeed indicator on a full-scale plane has a "redline" indicating VMC. If you go below this after an engine has failed, you are probably going to crash if at a low altitude. Activating the spoilers to try to raise the left wing (without lowering the nose) would only further aggravate the problem by increasing drag and hence lowering the airspeed even more.

Very sad indeed.

Hogster

Sep 02, 2004, 07:38 PM

I sort of agree with Berks line of reasoning (although the engine failure idea does sound plausable) - I've often had orientation problems (even with multicoloured aircraft), when they're far away in a dark sky. Without watching the video again (although you probably know the flight path now), which way would you say this plane is rolling?

Bear in mind that if it was a particularly dark day, the footage may be unrealistically brightened automatically by the auto-exposure on the camcorder ....

It seemed to be nipping along at a fair rate, so I doubt it was close to its VMC ....

Just my 2p :)

Edit: Oh and I have seen videos of B52s taking off and they usually do take off main-wheels first, nose wheel last ..... it seems strange but I've definately seen it happen!

Oh and I've just found this video of a real B52 crash .... not for the queezy-stomached .... :(

http://www.biic.de/aviation-museum/crashes/videos/b52_1.mov

ashdec87

Sep 02, 2004, 07:56 PM

That one is very sad. It looks like flaps only extended on one side, or an engine faliure.

If you look carefully at the right wing, you can see the right spoiler is fully deployed in attempt to stop the roll.

My heart goes out to the crew in that plane.

ash

ssyed

Sep 02, 2004, 08:07 PM

verrrrrrrry sadddd.....
:(
is there a video of the plane actually hitting the ground... the other one cuts off then just shows smoke going up.... i know i am sadistic... but i just wanna see it hit..

GaryMC1

Sep 02, 2004, 09:49 PM

Edit What is Gordon doing to the aerial in frames @ 12:34:18 and 12:34:19?
The aerial isn't apparent after these shots but it might be the resolution on my laptop screen, can anyone see if its up or down on take off

He extends it to its full length.

At 12:34:07 you can make out the antenna extended on the full screen version of Windows Media Player. At 12:34:17, you can clearly see that the antenna is fully extended as Gordon runs his hand up it. I'm sure that was just a reflex to make sure that the antenna *was* fully extended. But, to me, insofar as I can see, the antenna *is* fully extended.

However, even if Gordon, at this time is extending the antenna, what difference does it make as the airplane is still on the ground?

Gary

GaryMC1

Sep 02, 2004, 10:05 PM

One thing that maybe we aren't considering here, that we need to. Before the take-off, the announcer was doing his thing. Look at the blue tarp on this side of the fence. The wind is really blowing. Then, you can hear the wind sound through the microphone of the camcorder. Those mics are usually set in such a way that they don't pick up 'mild' wind noise, although stronger winds will cause it.

Then, during the take off, in the background there appears to be a windsock. It's standing straight out, which means the winds were more than 25kts (if I remember correctly).

At the end of the video, look how fast the smoke is moving off the crash site. And it's moving in the downwind direction.

I think what probably happened was that when he turned downwind, the wind was fast enough, and the airplane was slow enough that he lost the lift needed to keep the airplane in the air. When that happened, he rolled, and wasn't able to recover. In a right hand turn, the left wing would be the first to be affected by that, consequently it would stall and drop, causing the lefthand roll into the ground.

I would much prefer to find out it was something like a radio failure, or power failure, but I don't think it was. I think the airplane turned downwind and the wing didn't have enough forward velocity with a 25-30 knot tailwind to stay flying.

My opinion, of course.

Gary

Pontius

Sep 02, 2004, 10:19 PM

Spoilers for roll control work great on a swept wing at high speed, but there are drawbacks. I just read on a full-scale forum a comment from a former B-52 aircraft commander. He said that at low airspeeds, despite being well above the stall, the aircraft, with all it's anhedral and spoliers, it simply cannot recover from a bank angle greater than 60ish degrees. That caused the Fairchild AFB crash, and could perhaps have contributed to some of the R/C distress as of late.

GaryMC1

Sep 02, 2004, 10:24 PM

Wow, what a loss. I'm not so sure the FAA would allow a civilian to fly that sort of thing in the US. Turbine powered craft are limited to a certain weight by the AMA, right?

It looked terribly nose heavy to me. I'm not exactly sure what the MC was saying about the plane taking off the rear wheels first. But it doesn't sound right to me. Was he trying to say that it's normal for a B-52 to take off and land that way? I can assure you it's not. Here's a picture of a B-52 a second before landing. Notice the wheels are the same distance and parallel to the ground.

They probably somehow got the CG wrong for it to lift off tail first. It's "rotating" the wrong way;-)

Thunder, he didn't say anything about landing, but he was correct that the BUFF's take off in a nose down attitude. If you watch the video, you can see that the rear wheels come off first, and then the front set come off second. I've seen that on aviation programs, too. That does seem to happen that way. The airplane climbs in a near level attitude.

Gary

thunder1

Sep 03, 2004, 03:06 AM

This is what the MC says...

"What you've got to watch for is that when this aircraft rotates, you'll notice that the front wheels stay on the ground. The rear wheels lift off. And the aircraft takes a down nose attitude on takeoff as it does on landing. When the aircraft actually flys in the air, it also flys with down nose attitude. So, you watch this one."

I've seen many B-52s take off and land but that was many years ago. What I can say is that I saw the B-52 in the picture take off and land at Harmon airfield in Nfld CA, last month. It took off and landed with a normal (parallel to ground) attitude. It also flew with a normal attitude. The airfield in question was being used as part of an open house. On arrival the B-52 buzzed the runway at about 100 feet. The attitude was level during this run. And when climbing the nose was pointed very high. I'd say about 30-40 degrees.

Here's a quote from a B-52 pilot:
The B-52 was not difficult to land. You had a lot of mass coming down of the sky for a reunion with the ground. When you were lined up, you didn't have any trouble landing on the spot where you intended. You did not want to land nosewheel-first because the aircraft could porpoise [bounce fore and aft]; that could ruin your whole day, but it was almost impossible to do. Normally the rear trucks landed first.

As with the B-47, the landing gear arrangement prevented the bomber from performing a nose-up rotation during takeoff. To deal with this issue, the B-47 had been designed to sit on the runway with a nose-up attitude. In contrast, the B-52's fuselage was kept level, while the wing was canted up six degrees instead. This meant that the machine could be climbing rapidly when the nose was still pointed down, an experience that probably felt something like riding in an elevator.

I guess it all depends on how the aircraft is trimmed. But if it is severely nose heavy, it won't fly very well. He looks as if he's flying too slow, and the tail isn't providing enough down force to keep the nose up. A recipe for disaster.

Ron Laden

Sep 03, 2004, 03:10 AM

We could theorise all day about what happened, but I cant see it as pilot error. Gordon is an experienced pilot especially with large models, thats not to say he couldnt make a mistake. But if you think about it, having made the first turn the aircraft levels off. Gordon would be following it through in his mind working a right hand circuit and at this point there would be no reason to become disorientated. I think it would be highly unlikely that he would suddenly introduce a big left hand input by mistake.

The aircraft rolls left and out of the circuit, now it may have been mechanical, radio, flame outs, loss of airspeed downwind, whatever, but it doesnt look like pilot error to me. I guess Gordon will have a pretty good idea, but it would probably be the last thing he would want to discuss at the moment.

Ron

GaryMC1

Sep 03, 2004, 10:06 AM

Ron,
Without the experience of having been at the field on the day of the crash, having seen the airplane fly before, or knowing the stall speed of the airplane, all I can do is theorize.

However, I still think that the left wing just stopped 'flying' and stalled. Being such a huge airplane, and it would have to be relatively fast, I suspect Gordon throttled down some to keep the airplane 'in the box' for the field, and the wind from behind was fast enough to slow the relative airflow over the left wing to below flying speed.

If you watch the takeoff, you'll see that the airplane gets bumped around pretty well. I don't think those were control inputs, I suspect that the wind was kicking the airplane around some. Of course, I don't know, but I would suspect that the airplane probably had gyros installed in it to help handle it. Probably heading holds, so that Gordon wasn't manhandling it through the sky. It looks that way on takeoff to me, anyway.

I think it's going to come down to he flew the airplane too slow for the weather conditions. As someone pointed out earlier, we don't have any way to tell the airspeed of the airplane, nor it's stall speed. If the wind was 25-30 knots, and Gordon was within that range of the stall speed of the airplane, turning downwind would have set him up for the crash.

Gary

Ron Laden

Sep 03, 2004, 12:48 PM

Gary, If there was no mechanical or radio malfunction I guess you are probably right and the loss was due to the flying speed bleeding off down wind and into a stall upon which it dropped the left wing.

You would think that with todays technology it wouldnt be that difficult to have a small transmitter unit made up which is carried in the aircraft and measures airspeed and then transmitts this back to a small receiver unit which you clip on the TX.

It wouldnt be pratical for it to give an actual speed but an audible warning like the timers give on TX,s. say 1 bleep for 15mph above stall, 2 bleeps for 10mph and continuos for 5mph above. Or for a bigger safety margin have the facility to calibrate it so that a given speed is set for your bottom limit. Dont know, its straight off the top of my head, it could be a stupid idea and could become quite annoying I guess in the take off and landing, but on large scale expensive projects like this, if it worked it could possibly be a life saver.

Ron

WillowPtarmigan

Sep 03, 2004, 06:23 PM

That's really terrible that the B-52 model crashed. I am sorry to hear about it. So much hard work destroyed in a crash. :( :(

Dogzilla

Sep 03, 2004, 08:49 PM

When do you think it went out of control?

Looking at the video it starts to roll left, but the nose dips quite alot as well, then its gone :(

GaryMC1

Sep 03, 2004, 09:19 PM

You would think that with todays technology it wouldnt be that difficult to have a small transmitter unit made up which is carried in the aircraft and measures airspeed and then transmitts this back to a small receiver unit which you clip on the TX.

It wouldnt be pratical for it to give an actual speed but an audible warning like the timers give on TX,s. say 1 bleep for 15mph above stall, 2 bleeps for 10mph and continuos for 5mph above. Or for a bigger safety margin have the facility to calibrate it so that a given speed is set for your bottom limit. Dont know, its straight off the top of my head, it could be a stupid idea and could become quite annoying I guess in the take off and landing, but on large scale expensive projects like this, if it worked it could possibly be a life saver.

Ron

Actually Ron, I think what I'd like more than that would be a stall warning beep or buzzer. The problem with your suggestion is that the airplane will stall in different flight configurations. You can be doing almost Vne (max speed) and you change the attitude of the airplane, and you can stall the wing. World War II diver bombers had this issue.

I would prefer a buzzer that says your wing is stalling. If you were to look at the left wing of a Piper Cherokee, you could see this little aluminum vane sticking out. That's the stall sensor. It points down at about 30º from straight and level. As the wing moves upward in relation to the relative, and the wing stalls, airflow will push this 'vane' upwards, completing a circuit, and sounding a buzzer or light in the cockpit. I don't see why such a system couldn't be designed to fit on R/C. The biggest problem with that, though, is putting it into exactly the right position, and at the right angle. ARFs could probably be designed with one, but for home designed or kit built airplanes may have issues with getting position and angle correct. I can't think of anyway to test it without flying it, and at that point, you really need to be sitting in the airplane to figure it out. :)

Gary

Robert May

Sep 04, 2004, 03:35 AM

I think the speculations should stop till we hear from Gordon or one of the team, once they have found out the true cause of the problem.

Ill-informed comments won't be helping their situation.

Jedimaster65

Sep 04, 2004, 05:59 AM

Robert is right.
It is always tempting to speculate but we are all just guessing.
I hope gordon and his team are able to definitively say what happened in due course, but in the meantime I too would like to say I have been seeing this amazing model at the shows this summer, giving great pleasure to thousands of people, it was truly the greatest.

I am very sorry for Gordon and his team, best wishes mate.

leccyflyer

Sep 05, 2004, 12:44 AM

Here's some pictures of the crash site that have been posted on the web.

http://www.btinternet.com/~mystuff/concorde/gallery/b52crash.html

That is a very serious crash scene and IMHO they should consider very seriously whether it is appropriate to rebuild this model, as reports indicate that they intend to do. The team got away with this particular crash, in that no-one on the ground was hurt. That might very easily not be the case next time. Whatever caused the crash, and there are several debates going on regarding that, there can be no guarantee that there would not be a repeat performance.

Magnificent model or not, keeping such gigantic creations in the air depends on

1. an only marginally more robust radio link than the average club model, in that there are duplicate redundant systems

and

2. on the skill of the pilot, armed with almost no direct instrumental aids to flying the model.

There is a long history of model crashes at shows, indeed it appears to be the norm for one or more large models to be lost at flying events, which by definition are held in proximity to the public. The larger the model the greater the potential for serious damage when that model comes down. Personally I think we have long ago reached and exceeded the sensible limit with regards model size and weight. There are becoming as large as some light aircraft but, because of the reliance on 1 and 2 above, the guarantees that they can be operated to the same level of safety in close proximity to the public as those light aircraft, by virtue of having the pilot onboard, are difficult to achieve.

Brian

Hogster

Sep 05, 2004, 07:09 AM

Yikes those pictures are nasty! :o

I agree with you about the dangers of a model that size. The urge seems to be that if you've got LOADS of money, and you like building big things, then build the biggest plane possible and put some turbines in it! Looks very cool until something goes wrong. Unless you fly that plane in the middle of the desert, if something goes wrong and it crashes, anything within a 100m radius under the plane is in danger.

My <100" planes make enough mess when I crash them .... flying something with a 17ft wingspan would be too much responsibility, particularly knowing that if something did go wrong (be it pilot error or a mechanical failure), the results could be fatal.

I'll stick with me 40" park-fliers for the time being! :)

Flyin' Falzee

Sep 05, 2004, 09:47 AM

Yeah I agree with a really big model the responsibilty is increase that much more. I know a guy that flies around my area has a self designed and built delta wing made for speed. This aircraft has hit 307 MPH. I have seen it hit 304MPH. That is some serious speed, imagine the damge that could cause. This guy has double everything inside. Two receivers running on two seprate batterys running two servos on every control surface. Sounds like alot but he only has two control surfaces along the back (no rudder control). That b52 is similar to a ultralight really and weighing 330 LBS is most likely heaver than a hang glider.....and maybe the same weight as some engine powered hang gliders (with out pilot)....

ashdec87

Sep 05, 2004, 10:07 AM

That is very sad to see that good looking model burned like that. But like everyone's been saying it's very dangeous. What is the plane had gone down over the pits, or even near the pits. :(

i like my 40-50 inch planes.

Ash

GaryMC1

Sep 05, 2004, 12:15 PM

That b52 is similar to a ultralight really and weighing 330 LBS is most likely heaver than a hang glider.....and maybe the same weight as some engine powered hang gliders (with out pilot)....

Shawn, in fact, the FAA in the US restricts the weight of 'Ultralights' to 254 pounds. So this model was weighing in at a substantially higher weight than an Ultralight.

The discussion of 'have we gone too far' has been in the other threads on this crash as well. My feeling on this is that if you don't regulate, then people tend to push the limits, this is human nature. But, if you start to regulate, where do the regulations end? Will you be able to fly your .40 airplane anywhere that there are more than two people? We walk a fine balance here, and we need to remember that.

Gary

David A

Sep 05, 2004, 04:04 PM

My first post and such a sad subject. I saw the flight and crash, it left me feeling numb for a number of reasons, not least- sympathy for the pilot and the ramifications for our hobby if that huge model had fallen on people or property.

The more I've thought about very large models over the last week the more my views have hardened and it has made me question the whole rationale of building and flying such monsters.

Some of you guys are far more learned than me and your hypothesis are very convincing. I hope somebody finds out eventually. I think the reason may be something simple. It was a very windy day, it was a big model and the wind simply got underneath it, quickly pushed it up onto knife edge and left the pilot no time/height to recover.

Whatever the reason, I just hope lessons are learned in order to prevent a repetition because one day a poor unfortunate person is going to be underneath one of these goliaths when it goes in, and nobody can say that this was the last large model crash.

Flyin' Falzee

Sep 05, 2004, 04:04 PM

Yes I agree 100%, that is why i hate seeing big aircraft crash, thank god no one was envolved as in got hurt by it. As soon as something bad happens the goverment may start to tighten the restrictions on our great hobby!!! Of course i hate seeing anyone crash. I just worry that some gov official may see this big aircraft crash and start think about thee safety of such large A/C....

Robrow

Sep 06, 2004, 12:44 PM

csisfun

Sep 06, 2004, 01:19 PM

WOW. This thread is stirring up just like the 9/11 case 2 years ago.

ejett

Sep 09, 2004, 12:23 AM

See slight pitch down at 12:35:27 (timer visible on the larger video which includes takeoff)

Sad to see such a model crashing.. :(

I noticed that too. It sure seems like everything went wrong from that point on. That may be very significant evidence to the crash investigation.

BTW: All of the videos of the Fairchild crash that I have seen seemed to have been composites and not a continuous piece of film/video. If you look closely it appears the bank on the plane changes from left to right and back to left again before impact.

Am I seeing things here? Anybody else ever notice that?

EJ

Kimmers4Ever

Sep 09, 2004, 09:39 AM

When ti come to stuff like this, it makes me want to send a condolance card. Ug.. I just can't get past the money spent. Makes me cringe.

radfordc

Sep 09, 2004, 11:46 AM

Shawn, in fact, the FAA in the US restricts the weight of 'Ultralights' to 254 pounds. So this model was weighing in at a substantially higher weight than an Ultralight.

Gary

The 254 limit for ultralights is empty weight on the ground...no fuel, no pilot. Ultralights normally fly at a weight of 500-600 lbs and speeds of 60-70 mph.

Charlie

graham_mca

Sep 09, 2004, 12:32 PM

Model aircraft always have and always will crash every day and probably a high proportion of those crashes have lethal potential, fortunately good training and safety regulations mean that very seldom is that potential realised and that was the case here, because the model was flying over a relatively safe area no one was hurt. Big or small, don't matter which.

Rob.

I have been to Barkston Heath many times and the photos of the crash site on the link posted by Brian (leccyflyer) do not look like a part of the air base. Being 'download speed challenged' I have not seen the video which may well make the location of the crash more clear.

But as best I remember the demo line layout from 3 years ago I would suspect that this crash happenned significantly further away from the intended flight path than would have been required to reach the substantial crowds of spectators present.

I hate to see these big models fly, never mind crash, it just makes me nervous, I never turn my back!

leccyflyer

Sep 09, 2004, 07:35 PM

Graham

I've only been to Barkston Heath myself once and wasn;t there at the time, so don't know the details of the crash location beyond that on the video, though that shows that the model crashed behind a bank of trees, which might suggest that this was outside of the airfield itself.
The video shows the crash site to be relatively close to a dwelling, some reports have put the distance as something in the order of 25m, which would presumably be outside of the airfield itself. Initial reports were that the crash had occurred in the garden of the house, but the photographs demonstrate that it actually occurred in a stubble field, presumably left after crop harvesting.

Brian

GaryMC1

Sep 09, 2004, 11:29 PM

The 254 limit for ultralights is empty weight on the ground...no fuel, no pilot. Ultralights normally fly at a weight of 500-600 lbs and speeds of 60-70 mph.

Charlie

Charlie,
No doubt. I guess I just assumed that people would know that. ;) However, still, a 350 pound R/C with eight engines is still big! The full up gross weight may not be as heavy as an ultralight, but empty weight is still a good amount.

Gary

JDCochran

Sep 10, 2004, 12:27 AM

Fredrik
I am struggling to understand your post.

Let me see if I can help:

-----------------------------------

Frederick: "Gordon, 'ow much is it?"

Gordon: "Wot! You're a 'chisit'? Are you from 'lestah'?"

-------------------------------

Does this help?

[please pardon my poor attempt at British humor... only they can do it justice... oh, and sorry for the devastaing loss. And... are there any weight limits to models in Europe? I mean model planes, by the way. Please post answer(s) in NASA units... not in JPL unts.]

:p

John

MikeTwain

Sep 10, 2004, 11:00 AM

After reading through this thread I've come to the conclusion that building and flying a plane like this is practically a different hobby than flying an IFO in your backyard. This plane cost more than 100 times what my IFO cost and weighed about 500 times more.

To me, this is similar to the difference between me taking a Sunday drive in my Toyota and NASCAR drivers hurtling around a track at 200mph.

We and the regulators should probably recognize the fact that these planes need a different approach.

Berk

Sep 10, 2004, 11:32 AM

We and the regulators should probably recognize the fact that these planes need a different approach.

Agreed Mike...

Here is a 'Different approach' from the day before's B52 Slot..... :rolleyes:

Tx aerial Horizontal, and the caller looking the wrong way!!!!

Regards,

Steve

JDCochran

Sep 10, 2004, 12:26 PM

...We and the regulators should probably recognize the fact that these planes need a different approach.

One at the end of the runway would help.

:rolleyes:

Again, what's the weight limit in Europe?

-- JDC

Muxje

Sep 10, 2004, 12:52 PM

Again, what's the weight limit in Europe?

Probably different in each country :p UK has the same limit as Holland I think: 20kg. Large models like these are allowed to fly in at least some EU countries, but I've no idea what rules apply... inspection, insurance, contact w/ air traffic control... I think you need to get a special permit for each flight as well.

MGBGTRacer

Sep 10, 2004, 01:04 PM

I think they should have had more flight time on it- and the pilot- before flying in front of a crowd. If I remember correctly, it didn't have much flight time on it at all.

leccyflyer

Sep 10, 2004, 01:05 PM

The top weight limit here has been quoted as 150kg in other threads discussing this crash. All flying models over 20kg (without fuel) have to be inspected by an LMA approved airframe inspector both during the build and after the build and must complete with flght tests prior to being granted a permit to fly.

Models under 7kg still have to comply with the law of the land, in the form of the Air Navigation Order articles 55 and 56, set out to prevent the operator of such a model from recklessly endangering any person, vessel, structure or aircraft.

Models between 7kg and 20kg have additional legal requirements for their operation- the most important one being that the pliot must not make a flight with models of this type unless he has satisfied himself that the flight can be safely made- that would include weather conditions, structural integrity, systems, suitability of the flying site for operation of a particular model etc. These models do not require a permit to fly, but of course they may well be subjected to a less formal structural airframe check if flying at a public show.

Brian

djindivik

Sep 11, 2004, 10:11 AM

This model was 27th wingspan, it had 8 Wren gas turbines, & cost in the region of £30,000. Holding 22litres of Jet A1 fuel it weighed in at 330lbs flying weight. It appeared to nose dive in, off a left turn from about 250ft, it burst into flames on impact & was sadly totally destroyed. The pilot said he got disoriented. Sorry but the video file is too large to post here. Ray

Bill Glover

Sep 11, 2004, 10:57 AM

The pilot said he got disoriented.

There have already been a number of posts on this, including links to the videos. But I haven't seen any real explanation before, did he really own up to pilot error?

A sad loss of an amazing model.

djindivik

Sep 11, 2004, 11:02 AM

Oh I didn't know there were other posts about this crash. The disoriented comment was overheard by one of the guys who helped put the fire out. The comment is unverified. Ray

GaryMC1

Sep 11, 2004, 06:32 PM

Ray, there actually a quite a few threads on this, including a video of the full flight from start to finish.

As to Mr. Nichols getting disorientated, I guess it's possible, but how possible is it for someone who is doing a large 180º turn, level out, and then roll the airplane the other way into the ground? I don't buy that, sorry. My personal opinion is that he had the airplane slowed down in airspeed to keep it in the box, and then with a very brisk tailwind, the relative airspeed over wind decreased to below stall speed, and the wing stalled, and the airplane rolled in.

Gary

leccyflyer

Sep 11, 2004, 07:24 PM

Gary

From reading your earlier posts and you Noob! user title you are apparently new to RC flying. Believe me, once you have a few hours under your belt you will appreciate that disorientation is both very common and the most likely explanation for this particular crash.

Brian

Phil C

Sep 11, 2004, 08:33 PM

he crashed due to heavy heavy winds, and a too tight of a turn....that b-52 cannot make a turn banked more than 30 degrees agnst the wind, let alone with the wind....he enterd a spin, and could not recover..if anyone remembers, the same exact thing happened to a real b-52....if u really want to, go to rcuniverse crash disscussion...there is a large thread there about this crash

Haldor

Sep 11, 2004, 09:05 PM

I dont think it crashed due to a stall because:
On the flight video after the plane levels out after the first 180deg turn it suddenly change pitch a little and it start to roll to the right. This rollinput seem to be constant throughout the entire crash routine.

What could cause a model to roll left:
A) That would indicate loss of engine1 and possible engine2 and the pilot failed to recognice the source of failure. The loss of thrust will slow the right wing and it will loose lift and sink.

B) This model used spoilerons, right wing spoileron could have malfunctioned locking it. I believe this option to be unlikely.

C) Pilot loose model orientation - on such a large model i find this unlikely. The quick pitch change on the first downwind leg suggest other source.

I have seen a good quality video of this B52 on its maiden where it flies nicely even at steep bank, though weather and especially wind conditions was better on this particular footage.

Just 2cents worth of late nite rambling ;)

JIMJAM

Sep 11, 2004, 09:08 PM

I am sorry for the loss of the aircraft. However, I feel that a model of its size and weight should not be allowed to fly in such close proximity to people. They are lined up along the runway and I hear children in the background. I also question the conditions at the time of the flight. Even at 330 pounds, the a/c is obviously being heavily buffeted. I understand that disorientation is a common factor among alot of pilots. It should not be for a pilot operating a aircraft such as that.

Robert May

Sep 12, 2004, 01:01 PM

Haldor, Unlike full size aircraft operations, model pilots have a habit of fiddling and changing things after initial flights, sometimes the changes improve the flight envelope, sometimes they make it worse.

stegre

Sep 12, 2004, 01:06 PM

This, as TFLG would say, is about a 30K smoking hole...

http://www.teambanana.co.uk/b52crash2.wmv

Steve

screamin' eagle

Sep 12, 2004, 01:29 PM

Wow! That was awesome! At least my foamies don't catch fire when I crash 'em in the sticks...

IMoonBark

Sep 12, 2004, 01:39 PM

OUCH! No more to say...

Bill Glover

Sep 12, 2004, 03:45 PM

Speaking of changing things, I read in RCMW that it went into a spiral dive on a test flight when the flaps were deployed :eek:

FWIW, from the video I'd also guess at assymetric thrust (engine shutdown / failure), or a control / servo failure. It had been in S & L flight for a good 2 or 3 seconds before the left roll started, didn't look like a downwind stall and wing drop - too steady and deliberate. And the pilot was flying a right-hand circuit, I can't imagine he'd turn left from S & L flight by mistake and then not correct. Easy to get disorientated once it entered an uncommanded spiral dive though ... perhaps that's what the pilot meant.

slopeiron

Sep 12, 2004, 04:01 PM

Ouch. I wonder why it augered in like that. It did look a little unstable on takeoff though. The weight of all those engines on the wing was probably a big factor.

Russ.

bsirrell

Sep 12, 2004, 04:15 PM

is this the same model?

If so i saw a video of this on its maidens. Looked great then! not now though!

Does any one have any more info on this model or what happened?

KingOfTheHill

Sep 12, 2004, 04:19 PM

go to the "trial forums" on the bottom of the directory... there is a new forum trying to be permanent called "Crash Discussion"

theres LOTS of info on this plane...and yes, same one.

JOe

bsirrell

Sep 12, 2004, 04:58 PM

Very Sad! I am going with the down wind stall/overbanked turn theory.

Brett

Ryan Archer

Sep 12, 2004, 05:02 PM

it tip stalled when he was going downwind.ryan

Haldor

Sep 12, 2004, 06:30 PM

Robert, thats very true. However I dont believe it was a stall or piloting error (loss of orientation) that caused this B52 to crash. Something made this model roll/yaw to the right. A changed, now incorrect mix setting? I dunno, I can only speculate.
The quick pitch down after levelling out followed by the continous roll/yaw to the right is what my speculations are based on.

Sad to see this gorgeous model crash.