Thread Tools |
This thread is privately moderated by Vapor Trails, who may elect to delete unwanted replies. |
|
|||
|
Discussion
68% Pitts Challenger SMASHED
Plug the glue gun in!
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
Okay Bradley, I'll start this discussion.
After reading all the evidence leading up to the crash, I don't exactly buy it. Before learning that this bipe had a flat-four (Subaru-like "boxer") engine configuration I was expecting it to have either a whopping huge single cylinder (highly unlikely) or twin, but not a four cylinder. Why is all this important? Because having a spark plug pop out of the head of a running engine means differing loss of power depending on how many and what type of cylinders were present. Single cylinder: Lose a plug, lose the engine. It may windmill but that's all. You'll be the first to arrive at the scene of the crash. Twin cylinder: Lose a plug, engine still runs but will output less than half of the power it produced with both pots firing. Drag from the dead cylinder takes its toll. There may be sufficient power to maintain a long glide but not expected to climb or maintain altitude. Four cylinder: Lose a plug and it's not immediately obvious what's happening. Power is down, the exhaust note is different but the engine keeps on pulling. But power can be down 30-35% and the ability to perform will be hampered but unless the model was very close to the ground in a hover or harrier-type 'stalled' maneuver there should be sufficient thrust to maintain airspeed above a stall allowing for a careful attitude stabilisation and preparation to land wherever the pilot wants to land. Unfortunately there's no video footage showing the attitude of the Pitts a second or ten prior to the stall and (very unfortunate) contact with the ground but I DID see it flying, sorta gliding, a couple seconds before the right tip dropped, meaning it had sufficient airspeed and with full throttle applied, should have been able to stay flying, flying downwind not being a factor. There's something missing that we're not being told that was the true cause of the crash. If the engine was truly dead and making no thrust, it wasn't the escape of one spark plug that caused it. Unless the plug flew out of the hole and slammed into a close-by component of the ignition system, shutting everything down. Allrighty then, it's someone else's turn. Whatcha got? |
|
|
|
Agree with heli-headcase. Not enough video before the crash. I wonder if they were being kind to the pilot by not showing the whole truth. From the stall, spin incident that can be seen it looks like a "too low, too slow, stall spin"
With a plane that big it wont change direction like an EF 60" 3D'er and needs a fair amount of altitude to recover even with a healthy motor. My vote is for Pilot Error. Unless of course something fell off which we cannot see. Which also shouldn't be happening on a plane that size. |
|
|
|
|
|
Engine out, downwind, draggy biplane, the plane stalleth, then falleth.
|
|
|